Marriage Debate Far From Over

Progressives keep telling us that the marriage debate is over. Some Republicans have joined the chorus. Mark McKinnon this week explained that,

Allowing committed gay couples to marry never has—and never will—lead to these sorts of things. Instead, the impact of gay marriage—legal now in 44 percent of the country—has been stronger families, less government and more freedom.

And this is what the Texas marriage case is all about: freedom and family. It’s about whether loving, committed gay couples can marry like my wife and I did and raise stable, loving families. It’s about equal protection under the law, the rationale used by the federal judge out of San Antonio earlier this year in correctly striking down our state ban on same-sex marriage.

Got that? There’s absolutely nothing left to discuss about this whole marriage thing. No legitimate questions. No valid concerns. Shut up and get in line.

Marriage reformers are probably wise to opt for strangling the opposition rather than rebutting. They know that their strength is in the short game. They know how to marshal impressionable masses into one big, happy, transgressive parade. But those moments are by their nature fleeting. In the long game it’s conservatives who really excel. We have more children, and we inculcate them into the ancient faiths and traditions of our forefathers. Liberals have a knack for generating momentum, but let’s face it: it’s still nice to be on the team that likes babies.

In order to win the day, then, the liberal “kumbaya” moment has to be dramatic enough to break the back of the opposition. Otherwise, the battle shifts to conservative ground and they may end up losing the war. That partially explains the desperation some feel to declare the issue settled.

It’s anything but settled. And stifling debate is a strategy with a limited shelf life, since social changes do raise questions that eventually have to be addressed. At this juncture, marriage supporters may do their best work just by pushing those questions to the fore, in such a way as to invite the as-yet-uncommitted to reflect on them more meaningfully. For some people, it is helpful to feel that they’ve been granted “permission” to wonder about these issues.

Here, then, are a few questions that are worth pressing, particularly among friends or acquaintances who are still thinking through the marriage question.

What is marriage?

Ryan Anderson thinks he knows, but he’s a dangerous radical, or so I’ve heard. Discussing the matter with progressives, I tend to find that they’re a lot less clear on the issue.

For several semesters running, I’ve encouraged the students of my introductory ethics course to discuss the issue, and it’s striking how quickly they give up. The problem isn’t that they disagree. They just frankly don’t know.

My students are pretty quick to agree that marriage must be a contract of some kind. When we try to spell out the terms, though, they can’t come up with a single thing that definitely seems to belong on the list. Should spouses live together? It’s generally a good idea, but you know, depends on circumstances. Should they have children, or try? Totally optional. How about sexual exclusivity? That’s probably a good idea, but ultimately up to the spouses themselves.

They end up concluding that marriage is a completely do-it-yourself sort of project. Spouses just have to talk things over and decide what they want their marriage to be. Here’s the thing, though. If our young people (so, the people who should be getting married in the foreseeable future) can’t say anything about what marriage actually is, then the concept is just meaningless. That should maybe worry you if you think that marriage has some significance to a healthy society.

Are there differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples that we should notice and discuss?

The push to “expand” marriage was mostly predicated on the claim that there is no morally or socially relevant difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples. Sociological research doesn’t support that. In the Western world, sexual fidelity and permanence have long been central pillars of marriage. But the evidence suggests that gay men (even when joined together in a legally binding arrangement) are far less likely to be sexually exclusive to one another. Lesbian women are almost as likely as heterosexuals to be faithful to their partners, but they “divorce” at much higher rates.

In my experience, homosexuals themselves are often prepared to admit this in private conversation. They know that same-sex and opposite-sex coupling is not precisely the same. It is even sometimes suggested that homosexual patterns might be healthier, and that the modeling should go the other way! Now that that suggestion is on the table, it should clearly be acceptable to discuss whether or not homosexual relationship norms are good, healthy, or morally equivalent to traditional marital norms, without being accused of bigotry.

Are children better off with mothers and fathers?

This question certainly touches a nerve. More than once homosexuals have told me how hurtful it is when people suggest that any child they raised (with their partner) would be deprived of something important. I can understand why that would sting, and I don’t wish to cause anyone pain. But I stand by the general principle that when children’s welfare is at issue, adult feelings should take a back seat.

Mothers and fathers contribute different things to the lives of their offspring. Mothers, for example, tend to be more attuned to the moods and feelings of young children especially; fathers excel at discipline and at pushing children to give their best effort. On this topic, though, I think it can help to move beyond the sociological research and ask people: are you really comfortable asserting that a child suffers no misfortune by being motherless? Or by being fatherless? Of course there will always be children who grow up under sub-optimal circumstances, often for reasons beyond anyone’s control. That’s not a justification for cementing sub-optimal circumstances as a new norm.

Where is the expansion of marriage going to stop?

Little more than ten years ago, traditional marriage supporters were roundly mocked for suggesting that same-sex marriage would open the door to other “innovations” like polygamy and polyamory. Obviously we’ve moved on from that point.

Given how rapidly things have been changing, it’s reasonable to ask what else may be subject to change. And given progressives’ comfort with ignoring normal democratic processes, there’s no reason to think that future changes will happen gradually, or that people’s views and objections will be respected.

Rachel Lu

By

Rachel Lu, a Catholic convert, teaches philosophy at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota where she lives with her husband and four boys. Dr. Lu earned her Ph.D. in philosophy at Cornell University. Follow her on Twitter at rclu.

  • TERRY

    The tactic is and has been obvious – intimidate anyone who disagrees with you on the subject, paint portraits of them as insensitive (my favorite) hurtful, homophobic, religious fanatic, etc. Why? Because their position cannot withstand logical, reasonable discussion, and if people can be intimidated into not stating their positions, the discussion will not reach that point.

    • R. K. Ich

      Cultists generally reject debate. Catholics know Truth wins and the proper medium of Truth is reason and the imagination. Cultists have abandoned both for pleasure and, ironically enough, government controlled “autonomy”.

      • ErickMN

        You mean the “truth” that the Catholic church is rapidly falling out of favor with the younger generations, and is now most strongly associated in the minds of most Americans with pedophile priests and the lavish lifestyles of its Archbishops?

    • ErickMN

      Aww, poor baby. People are calling you names, and that hurts your little feelings. If you aren’t strong enough to stand up and state your opinoins without whining and moaning little a little child, sit down and shut up. You’re just wasting everyone’s time with this drivel.

    • BillinJax

      A good and accurate description of the current regime and its leader in Washington..

  • Is this not just preaching to the choir? Name one progressive lie that American culture, after embracing, ever gave up on. The slippery slope seems to be unidirectional, we are not at the bottom yet.

    • James

      Eugenics.

      • R. K. Ich

        Back-burner does not mean off the table. Abortion and Euthanasia are one step removed.

      • DE-173

        What makes you think that is off the table? Sanger’s repellant desire to rid the world of swarthy undesireables is still present in the atavistic mind, witness the rancid “Meathead” Rob Reiner’s recent comments about the tea party.

        The impulse has not been extinguished, it’s been redirected.

        There’s a reason statism and genocide go hand in hand.

    • DE-173

      It is unidirectional and a ratchet. Slowly but surely, we will be subject to an ever more demanding state. How long will it be before we are summoned to have “the number” emblazoned on our forehead?

      See my comment above on “progressive”.

    • msmischief

      Prohibition. Segregation.

      True, the Ministry of Truth rewrote history to take their fingerprints off, but Progressive they unquestionably were.

      • Segregation was progressive?

        • msmischief

          Oh, yes. During and after the Reconstruction, the feds slapped down Jim Crow when it was passed. It was the great Progressive Woodrow Wilson who stopped that — and who segregated the federal work force.

          • Wow, never realized Woodrow Wilson was considered a progressive.

  • Vinnie

    “I can understand why that would sting, and I don’t wish to cause anyone pain.” Not wishing to cause anyone “pain” is what has brought us to where we are. No one is uncomfortable or thinks twice about ANYTHING, and you can’t make them “feel” that way either. Unless you’re a hater.

    • GG

      That is the one part of the essay I cringed at. The false notion that not wishing to cause pain is some admirable quality. Stating the truth can cause pain. Too bad. The issue is not the false feelings of people who would harm kids. The issue is the objective fact it is moral violence to pretend children can be subjected to two men acting like a mother and father.

    • R. K. Ich

      That made me cringe too. All too often words like “compassion” and “pastoral” are confused with this. The value of pain is it arrests our attention when our intellect and will stray. Maybe what Dr. Lu meant is more benign, but I just think we need to ask ourselves if we are being good communicators of truth if our words never piss anyone off or prick their conscience.

    • DE-173

      “I can understand why that would sting”

      Yes, the truth often hurts.

      • Fred

        Actually, I find the truth often to be liberating. Of course sometimes it does sting because we don’t want to hear it. Or in the case of Jim Foley, the truth brought him to God this week.

        • ForChristAlone

          God have mercy on his soul. I see that the Holy Father telephoned his parents. Nicely done, Francis.

        • DE-173

          I went to grade school with a kid named Jim Foley (unrelated, pure coincidence), but the name made me reflect on those long-ago days, I realized how I then I was on the first few steps of an order that is crumbling beneath our feet now.

    • ForChristAlone

      At the risk of sounding anti-woman, my experience leads me to believe that this kind of acute sensitivity to hurting people’s feelings is a woman thing. We need to get over it. It largely accounts for the mess we’re in i.e. feeling sorry for people…the old Bill Clinton BS of, “I feel your pain.” (That wasn’t all that Bill Clinton was feeling.)

      • DE-173

        There’s a reason your Mother’s most persuasive threat was “wait until your Father gets home”.

      • R. K. Ich

        In the old days, men didn’t have to drive big pick-up trucks with large plastic testicles hanging from their hitch (saw this the other day). Nowadays a largely emasculated culture requires a few crude idiots to do this very thing just to let everyone know he’s not been sissified.

        It’s no accident Feminism and Same Sex Perversion has a correlative spike in our culture. With heroism more and more relegated to the margins (you know, only firefighters and military get that spotlight), and everyone in touch with their feelings and “true identities”, we now have to wade through this vomit just to defend manhood, womanhood, and true marriage.

        I won’t even start on the corrosion such a culture has wrought on popular worship in Protestant and Catholic circles (Leon Podles has done this already, I believe).

        • ForChristAlone

          Doesn’t sound like a rant but an acute appreciation of reality. There’s no substitute for direct talk.

    • Tamsin

      Agreed, but I didn’t cringe. Dr. Lu seems pretty fearless in all her writings. I think her formulation is a reasonable pleasantry given that we have entered a cultural age in which an entire generation of twenty-something gays has been “raised” by their gay elders to believe and to know that motherless families are fine. Love makes a family!

      Whether motherlessness is a dogma for ever and always, or a discipline useful for now, remains to be seen.

      (Fatherless families? Well, that experiment has been run; in fact, you’re a hater if you question government provision of services to single moms on behalf of their children. And if a single mom is fine, two moms is even better, right? The fineness of fatherlessness is a… dogma.)

      A similar situation might be how you would speak to a child of divorce about infidelity. What words do you use without provoking a strong reaction based on the child’s loyalty to his parents, who have told him they love him and want what is best for him?

  • fredx2

    Social changes that are positive take place slowly. Social changes that are negative take place very quickly. Those social changes that are pushed by the media tend to be particularly corrosive.

    Rachel Lu is absolutely correct. Gay marriage is just beginning. As soon as we find out that those children are in fact, not happy with their parents constant philandering, and that they have trouble figuring out what sex roles are in a relationship, things are going to change. There are so many arguments against it that it takes people from the universities to pretend that there are no downsides. Of course the “science” that they rely on is bogus, as is much of the stuff that people call “social science”.

    We have seen a well played political campaign. Now real life is going to set in, and the devastation that will be caused in these children’s lives is going to be terrible to watch.

    • DE-173

      “Social changes that are positive take place slowly. Social changes that are negative take place very quickly.”

      They are also organic, rather than orchestrated. Social engineering is a monkey at the controls of a nuclear reactor, and an exercise in hubris.

      • ErickMN

        Did you just get a new Thesaurus?

      • ForChristAlone

        “Social engineering is a monkey at the controls of a nuclear reactor, and an exercise in hubris and iatrogenic peril.” You’re beginning to sound Chestertonian.

        • DE-173

          “You’re beginning to sound Chestertonian.”

          We all have a rare lucid moment.

    • ErickMN

      Just a bunch of words with no facts, documentation, citing or statistics. One could actually call your entire post just one extended whine.

      • ForChristAlone

        I can see that you love Fred, Erick.

      • GG

        Just a bunch of words with no facts, documentation, citing or
        statistics. One could actually call your entire post just one extended
        whine.

    • R. K. Ich

      Just yesterday I was walking to my car and saw a mini-van with a bumper sticker of a rainbow ribbon wrapped around a Mickey Mouse head (presumably from Disney’s Gay Days event), and on it read, “I love my two mommies!” I was saddened but hardly surprised. This sticker was not put there most likely at the behest of the victim (the poor child), but I’ll bet dimes to donuts the “happy” couple did.

      Waiting for the “I love my three daddies” sticker.

    • ForChristAlone

      I think what you have written here, Fred is prophetic. I’d never considered the temporality aspect of social change and what it might predict.

      I think the term “fad” is appropriately applied to this whole same sex “marriage” craziness. I put it into the same category as hula hoops.

    • DE-173

      If the post secondary educational industry was publicly traded, I’d be loaded up on puts (a right to sell stock at a future time and specificed price) or a seller of calls (a right to buy stock at a future time and specificed price) or shortselling, because the price of tuition (absent their organization as tax exempt “charities” and a deep reach into the public treasury) would be indicative of a huge bubble. The financial press is now filled with articles about how college is oversold for many students and alternative paths are increasingly acceptable substitutes.

      Even with all the explicit and implicit subsidies, this has to stop. Some day, our creditors are going to look at our national debt ratios and look to other instruments or insist on more realistic risk premia. Well that and Julia needs to be dependent cradle to grave, not just for four years.

      Whether the current hegemony erodes or explodes, there’s going to be a radical reordering of so-called “higher education”, away from residential, classroom training and nonsense indoctrination masquerading as education.

      That’s when we can assign to the lunacies of the modern academy to the dustbin of history.

    • Why should the devestation be any worse than the promiscuity of no fault divorce? The slippery slope is unidirectional.

  • RTW

    These are mostly word arguments and assertions that lack any quantification or data. For example the writer cites Lesbian “divorce” (what is with the quotes?) without stating any actual statistics or providing comparable rates for other subsets of the population.

    • R. K. Ich

      All the quantification in the world can’t trump an agenda that is hell-bent on worshiping an unnatural lifestyle and forcing everyone else to “celebrate”. This debate is not resolvable with number crunching.

      • ErickMN

        No one forces you to think about how OTHER PEOPLE live their lives. Get a real hobby and get on with it. Sheesh.

      • GG

        Exactly! It is not about “studies”, or social science silliness. It is about right reason and logic.

    • DE-173

      The very first lesbian “union” has been bifurcated, I know because the cause was presented to a court several states away-blocks away from where I sit.

      • ErickMN

        And that’s your “proof” of a sweeping generalization? Hilarious!

        • DE-173

          He asked for a statistic. I gave him one. Sample size = 1.

        • ForChristAlone

          Lovely, Erick.

    • Conservative Thinker

      The author could/should have linked to the data. It is certainly out there and she is right that sociologists are well aware of it. Lesbian relationships are very unstable.

      • ErickMN

        She can’t link to data that doesn’t exist. And neither can you.

        • DE-173

          Geez Erick, you seem a little irritable today. Lower GI problems again?

        • ForChristAlone

          I love you Erick. Do you love Conservative Thinker? I think you do but won’t admit it. Come one, now, admit it. You DO love CT, yes?

        • Gal

          Here is another sample size = 1, Erick. My family member has been in two serious lesbian relationships and counting. Not to mention the behind the back trysts she was engaged in. I can’t wait until I’m made to meet another of her soul mates only to say good bye 5 years later.

          • DE-173

            Tssk, Tskk, Tskk.. Click on “GAL” and “Chris” comes up…

            TROLL ALERT.

            • Gal

              Im no troll, nor am I Chris. I don’t know why that happened.

              • USS Eldridge

                I didn’t think YOU were the troll. It happened yesterday or the day before as well.
                Maybe some of the nice folks that made Firefox get rid of Brendan Eich put us in the malicious code cross hairs.

            • DE-173

              Moderator: Now “GAL” clicks on my profile.
              The site has been hacked.

        • James1

          Does data exist to prove otherwise? Please cite.

  • LHJ

    Good article very encouraging I am happy that young and old alike are being encouraged to ask questions. I often think when the “war on women” and “women’s choice ” is being discussed why somebody doesn’t ask: There are almost one million abortions a year statistically over half of those would be female babies doesn’t that deny almost 500,000 tiny women in the womb the choice to live and doesn’t that constitute a war on women?

    • ForChristAlone

      LHJ, that’s simply too obvious for addled minds who complicate things needlessly. It’s the same reasoning about the disproportionate number of African/Hispanic Americans who are aborted. What does that say about them as a group that the “progressives” conveniently ignore? I think Sanger’s idea was to get people to buy into the notion of what I call “autoeugenics.”

  • Watosh

    I am amazed at the away people all over the country have embraced this absolute stupidity of “taking the challenge” of getting dowsed with ice water in order to make a donation to find a cure for some disease. according to the news everybody is doing this from NFL players to college professors to politicians. The only thing it seems to demonstrate is that Americans will do anything that will bring them the approval of their peers. So it is with homosexual marriage. Being for it brings approval from the media celebrities, which then leads to approval from the general unthinking public. The mass of Americans crave approval, so they will do and think whatever they know will gain the approval of their fellows. H. L. Mencken where are you when we need you?

    • Carolyn

      My thoughts exactly!

    • DE-173

      “H. L. Mencken where are you when we need you?”

      Having tea in hell with Nietzsche and Ayn Rand, and based on this attributed quote, also at a table with Margaret Sanger.

      “It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry.”

      • Watosh

        H. L. Mencken was admittedly an atheist, and as such certainly deserves not to be considered infallible. However he was a keen observer of the foibles of the American scene. He probably saw nothing wrong with contraception, but the comment above reflects a criticism of those Catholics who mistakenly felt the rhythm method lawfully, though they were forbidden to use certain physical practices, permitted Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy. Mencken was just pointing out the hypocrisy in this attitude by his comment cited. Some Catholics mistakenly thought NFP could be used to avoid pregnancy, so Mencken might have been mislead to believe this was true. ( I know some Catholics who even rejected the idea of NFP because it was open to abuse.) It is like some non-catholics might, with some reason, describe the wholesale granting of annulments as the Catholic divorce. Certainly under the circumstances, their making this observation isn’t cause to condemn them for so saying. This appearance was made.

        Now I will readily admit that I have no idea of just who the inhabitants of hell are, I might have suspicions, but it has not been given to me to know who is in hell, nor do I believe that it has been given to any other humans, so I can’t argue about who all inhabits hell, rather I just will try to avoid being one of those.

        • DE-173

          In other words, if you like the guy his overt anti-Catholicism doesn’t matter.

          • Watosh

            When he was right, he was right. I have seen some things overtly anti-catholics have said that support catholic beliefs. Even anti-catholics can have some valid ideas. As long as they are honest and and do not lie about things. Now if one’s faith is brittle and skin deep, then reading anti-catholic statements is not advised, but if one’s faith is strong enough to discern truth from error wherever it appears, it can be a source of valuable insights as to what bothers those who profess to be anti-catholic. I believe that some feel it is profitable to go out among the sinners. Aristotle and Plato were not Catholics, but some of their thoughts were deemed valuable by some Catholic minds in the past. In his own way Mencken did repeat truth and did pursue the truth. He was also made out to be a misogynist, but again he was a soft touch. He was against the religion of cant that is so widespread in this benighted nation, which earns him some repeat from me. There are some “Catholic” writers whom I don’t like too, despite their overt Catholicism. Actually you might say that I am catholic in my likes and dislikes.

    • ForChristAlone

      You know, Watosh, I had the same thought, but in reference to those who voted for Obama. It’s like a herd mentality which I personally find too distasteful.

      I wonder if someone came up with the clever idea that you can stand up for ALS by taking a loaded pistol to your temple and pulling the trigger how many would actually follow through. I find dumping ice water over your head equally as inane.

    • Objectivetruth

      If you polled the American public if homosexuals should have the “right” to marry you’d probably get a majority “yes.” If you poll the same group if anal sodomy between two men is immoral and viscerally disgusting you’d get an almost unaminous “yes.”

      • MarkRutledge

        It’s worse than than. Take a poll asking if the person supports “marriage equality” and you’ll more than likely get a majority “yes.” Ask the *same people” if they support homosexual marriage you are much less likely to get a majority “yes.” Such is the power of euphemism.

      • mugger malcolmridge

        Agreed. I’ve always thought that a good question to ask is “exactly how is your homosexual ‘marriage’ consummated?”

    • Asmondius

      Incidentally, are you aware that the organization benefiting from the funds raised supports stem cell research using the remains of aborted children?

      • Watosh

        No I was not aware of that. I was merely addressing the behavior of Boobus Americanus. But why does that not surprise me?

      • Objectivetruth

        Correct. Stay away from the ice bucket challenges. The primary recipient of donations is the ALSA, which does embryonic stem cell research. From the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC):

        http://www.ncbcenter.org/resources/the-ncbc-response-to-the-the-als-challenge

        • Asmondius

          Great link and write-up – thanks very much

  • DE-173

    “And given progressives’ comfort with ignoring normal democratic processes, there’s no reason to think that future changes will happen gradually, or that people’s views and objections will be respected.”

    Can we please stop indulging that part of political continuum that is:
    1.) Statist
    2.) Collectivist
    3.) Elitist
    4.) Secularist

    with their inane euphemism “progressive”. There’s nothing “progressive” about having political order that empowers a few or one-if the one happens to have a pen and a phone-to issue edicts and fiats from their Olympus that demand your obedience without recourse. They are atavists, no more sophisticated than neolithic cave dwellers that were subject to the whims of the clan’s alpha male, and to the extent they fuse state and commerce; fascists.

    • BillinJax

      Exactly….the pen and phone are nothing more than a spiked club and a belching growl in what we see as the progressives gorilla warfare against sane and civilized society by removing restrictive taboos on their march to Neanderthal Utopia.

      • R. K. Ich

        I hope “gorilla” was meant to be a pun. If so, I see what you did there.

        • DE-173

          I think he meant guerilla.

          • R. K. Ich

            Me too, but it looks wittier with “gorilla”.

      • ForChristAlone

        I love the use of the word “gorilla;” it aptly fits.

    • ErickMN

      Are you conveniently forgetting that same-sex marriage was approved by the voters in Maine, Washington and, in part, Minnesota? Why let the facts get in the way of your whiny rant? Big words don’t equate to truth, by the way.

      • DE-173

        “Big words don’t equate to truth, by the way.”

        Neither does an election. Buy a dictionary, if your vocabulary is so paucious.

      • ForChristAlone

        Erick, I love you. Do you love me? Do you love DE-173?

        • Asmondius

          Erick suffers in the search for agape.

      • James1

        As USS Eldridge intimated, approval by vote means no more than a greater number of people voted for something than against it. It does not at all indicate the issue on which the vote was taken is meaningful in itself.

        Garbage in, garbage out.

        • Asmondius

          And actual voters are typically not even a majority of adults.

      • Asmondius

        Are you conveniently forgetting all of the states where the voters prohibited it? Why let the facts get in the way of your whiny rant?

      • Monica

        I am a Maine resident and I can tell you that gay marriage was overwhelming rejected on the ballot only two years ago. But the people got beaten down with a very aggressive campaign the next go round, and so it passed. It very clear that people are afraid to come out against it anymore because they know it means being labeled as a homophobe, and being ostrecised. The left constantly uses fear to silence people and then declares itself the winner of every argument.

  • DE-173

    3..2..1.. we have ignition.

  • When a small, micro portion of the population has this much say and effect, look for what they are ‘doing’ not what the results are. Eventually their mess will be clear. The difficulty is not letting it affect what you hold true and dear. Perhaps if sacramental marriages were the rule they may call gay marriage anything they please. Won’t make any difference. Use the legal system and ‘Ceasar’ against itself while building something real. There is a problem with christian marriage if it doesn’t have any better ‘standing’ than those who visit a justice of the peace.

    • ErickMN

      It’s not just gay people. It’s their millions of family members, neighbors, co-workers, friends, etc. etc. etc. and everyone else who believes in equality for ALL people, You and your ilk are a rapidly dwindling subset of the population, and you and your views are headed straight for obscurity. Enjoy that sad little journey.

      • Be careful what you wish for.

        • ErickMN

          I wish you people would get hobbies that DON’T involve denying civil rights to others. How about that?

          • You are afraid of something it appears. No one I know is denying anyone ‘civil’ rights, a grand meaningless lumpsum term that says nothing. What rights are you afraid of losing?

            • DE-173

              “No one I know is denying anyone ‘civil’ rights”.
              Check with those who aren’t free to conduct their business in conformity with their morals.

            • Asmondius

              The right to wear a cocktail dress with pumps.

          • DE-173

            I wish “you people” would get hobbies that DON’T involve denying civil rights to others.

            Seriously, you should see a gastroenterologist for your irritable bowel syndrome, of course, he might make recommendations that you might not like.

          • ForChristAlone

            Do you love, Michael, Erick?

            • Asmondius

              Lord, have mercy.

          • R. K. Ich

            Civil Rights (TM), Equal Rights (TM), Tolerance (TM) [which by the way is rapidly falling into disuse] are just empty terms. Nobody cares to debate what they mean anymore because it’s assumed these are shields against the criticisms of natural law and religion against the “My Libido is Lord” contingent.

          • GG

            There is no right to perversity.

          • Asmondius

            There is no ‘civil right’ to be something you are not.

      • ForChristAlone

        I love you Erick. How’s it going, bud? I am praying for you.

      • R. K. Ich

        Christ Himself said the kingdom was found by a few, so what do Catholics have to fear about being part of the “rapidly dwindling” population? It’s no shock that the world chooses apostasy and treason over her Creator, and that God Himself reserves His elect against the tide of madness. Nazi supporters could have played the numbers game too.

        Besides, I love how the anti-civilizationists forego debate and go right to the “we have more benighted souls on our side than you have sane people on your side” chant when reason fails.

      • Fred

        Where do you think the journey ends for you Erick, do you have any idea, or is it uncomfortable to contemplate your finite life in this world and so chose not to? I know some believe we are just a pile of hydrocarbon goo with some minerals for rigidity. Are you of that camp? Do you believe in the prince of this world and his cunning, deceitful ways? Many do not so if you’re in that camp you can take solace today along with your fellow earthly travelers – comfort in numbers, right? Why do think you have sex organs – just for your pleasure and amusement? What if you are wrong, what if you met the Lord – how would you account for your life? Don’t confuse love thy neighbor with love their sin. An enabler ignores the obvious and tells them sinner everything is fine. Someone who loves wants them to be in grace with God and helps them. Not all of us do and fall short.

      • DE-173

        The biggest pseudonogamy advocate I know is a the daughter of my cousin. She has a few lesbian friends from high school and panders to them with such deep thoughts as “afterall, love is love”. Of course, she also posts such gems as “nothing to do today, so we’re getting loaded”. At 30ish, she’s unmarried and apparently uninterested in such things, as she pursues a career in retail. So messed up on so many levels.

      • Asmondius

        Two men can not equal a man and a woman – no matter how many fools condone your fantasy.

    • Marriage existed long before the Church … If one were to take it for it’s original meaning, it was a contract to exchange some livestock for another man’s daughter. Polygamy was the norm (something the Mormons brought back for a while).

      Why should a religious marriage be any different in the eyes of the law?

      • The ‘exsitence’ of marriage has gone through numerous understandings yes. The trouble is as you say, eyes of the law. The argument is clearly over who gets to say what the law sanctions and what it doesn’t. Christians seldom practice ‘marriage’ any better than anyone or anything else. I would like to see the option of marriage outside the ‘eyes of the law’ as the only real ‘marriage’ possible.

        • Then who decides things like:
          1. Next of kin at hospitals and funerals?
          2. Wills and probates
          3. Custody of children if on of the couple dies?
          4. Custody of goods and homes in they split?
          5. Family pensions (eg military when a serving member dies)?

          It is only the legal interpretations of these issues that the debate is about … and where gay couples are unfairly treated.

          EG: A gay person was prevented from visiting her dying partner at a hospital because she wasn’t a blood relative or legal spouse. How absolutely cruel to let someone die in such a situation – but that’s the law.

          • “Fairness” is a myth and only lives in the eye of the beholder. All of those things can be ‘fairly’ dealt with any number of ways. These are all bogus issues. You want the GOV in your bedroom and pocket book while it steals you blind. I am interested in an other path. You may have your wish. Be careful what you wish for. Equal outcomes is nonsense and only a certain kind of mind believes in it.

            • GOV in the bedroom? No, that’s when the Gov is preventing people who love from getting married (or in some GOP states, from having sex). And nothing I’ve said is about equal outcomes, it’s about equal opportunity.

            • Why should the Church control marriage that existed long before the Church or even Judaism?

              • What church controls marriage? GOV controls the contract and legal concepts you want to acquire. Get an attorney and discover you may find a way to have the best of all sides. You appear more interested in controlling more than just your behavior.

                • The GOV would legalize gay marriage (which would solve everything) if the Church wasn’t opposed to it. I’m not interesting in controlling anyone … allowing gays to marry doesn’t detract or take anything from anyone else.

                  • The GOV’s legal system end around has legalized it. You want standing, you want equal comfort, you want respect and a god to agree with you. Never going to happen. You have equal opportunity and you refuse to use it. What you have is marriage to anything, including animals, robots of the future and dental floss if the delusion suits you. The church has no standing in the argument nor do you. The voters do not either. The system will continue at the same petty pace until it collapses or produces breakthrough. I win regardless.

                    • “Animals, robots and dental floss” … A complete red herring argument We are only talking about consenting adults. There is no valid reason to prevent gays from having the same rights under the law, which they currently do not have. I’d be willing to bet that the arguments you’ve presented were used against interracial marriage also

                    • You are the one arguing red herrings.

                    • Nope… I’m just arguing for consenting adults to be viewed equally under the law as doing this takes nothing away from anyone else.

                    • That is your delusion. You already have that. You want more.

                    • It is you who is having a problem with reality.They are NOT viewed equal under the law in the items I listed above and at least 30 more areas.

                    • Only from your perspective

                    • It’s not perspective, it IS the law.

                    • I’m not sure what you’re hoping to “win” by opposing them?

  • Dick Prudlo

    This subject will become clear to all after the Synod of 2014. We will see writ large how our clerics spin it. Brace yourself for “pastoral” solutions” fellow Catholics.

  • ErickMN

    There’s a lot to laugh at in this article, but my favorite is Lu’s hilarious contention that “(Conservatives) have more children….”. Yeah, sweetie, and those children are rejecting your intolerance in droves. The younger generations, in general, have no tolerance for your tired arguments in favor of denying civll rights to gay people. You’ve lost the battle, and the war. Pick up your toys, and go home.

  • Chris

    Another day, another anti-equality advocate spouting the EXACT same discredited Heritage Foundation questions that have been asked, answered and thoroughly discarded in 38 (yes, thirty-eight) court decisions in the last 14 months.

    I love the right-wing tactic of asking college freshmen right-wing talking points disguised as complex life questions, and then using the befuddled responses as proof that we pro-marriage equality advocates have no idea what we’re even doing or what we’re even advocating for.

    Gay marriage?!?!! Geez Louise–we don’t even know what marriage is!!!

    This article reminds me of that crazy New Zealander evangelical who wanders around college campuses with a camera crew asking non-bio majors: “Do you believe we came from monkeys?!” When he gets the confused responses he wants, he turns to the camera and says: “See? Just like I told you! Evolution is a lie!”

    Anyway….let the #Smackdown commence….

    (re: McKinnon’s piece) “Got that? There’s absolutely nothing left to discuss about this whole marriage thing. No legitimate questions. No valid concerns. Shut up and get in line.”

    Nowhere in the linked piece did McKinnon advised you to “shut up” or “get in line.” Nor did he say there’s nothing left to discuss. This is a conversation we’ve been having for several years now, and a conversation we’re continuing to have as the various marriage cases make their way back to SCOTUS.

    McKinnon–a lifelong Republican and a former advisor to W–merely pointed out that your side is losing (and losing badly) in both of the court of law AND the court of public opinion. Young people (yes, even your befuddled undergrads) have overwhelmingly moved on from this issue. In fact, support for marriage equality among young evangelicals is now at a startling 30%. Amongst your fellow Catholics (young and old), support is up to 60%.

    In court, your side can’t seem to come up with single compelling constitutional argument or rational government interest in keeping LGBT couples from legally marrying, except (if this article is any indication):

    1) Gay men cheat.

    2) Lez’s can’t stay married for longer than, like, 45 minutes.

    3) Eventually we’re TOTALLY going to have legalized polygamy in this country.

    …But more on that later.

    ‘What is marriage?”

    –Good question. Unfortunately for you and the Heritage Foundation, in the context of the conversation currently being had in the courts, it’s wholly irrelevant. Contrary to what Ryan T. Anderson wants you to believe (since his livelihood depends on it), the question before the courts is NOT: “What Is Marriage?” Rather, it’s more along the lines of: “Do laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying further any rational government interest?”

    The answer, handed down in one federal court decision after the next, is categorically “NO!” Constitutional bans which prohibit LGBT couples from marrying serve absolutely NO rational government purpose, and furthermore are unconstitutional.

    “Are children better off with mothers and fathers?”

    —“But wait!”, you say. “What about the children?! Won’t SOMEBODY think of the children?!” In every single federal court case, your side has attempted to link same-sex parenting with broken families, familial dysfunction, and child abuse/neglect—all without a single shred of scientific evidence to back it up. Your side has also made the laughable claim that allowing for same-sex marriage will result in MORE broken families as men will be less likely to marry the women they’ve knocked up and will be less likely to be a responsible parent to their illegitimate children. Hell, they might even disappear out of the child’s life completely! All because of the gays and their marriage licenses. (?!)

    No, I’m not making this up. Nor do I really need to point out that that ridiculous claim has been laughed out of court again and again. You have absolutely no evidence that a child being raised by same-sex parents is somehow a “sub-optimal” upbringing.

    On a separate note, your buddy Ryan has stated: “Marriage matters because it’s the best protector against child poverty”, which is an argument FOR same-sex marriage.

    “But the evidence suggests that gay men (even when joined together in a legally binding arrangement) are far less likely to be sexually exclusive to one another.”

    —Can we establish exactly WHEN monogamy all of the sudden became a legal prerequisite for a marriage license? When was this, exactly? How is this even REMOTELY relevant to the constitutional questions being asked?

    “Lesbian women… ‘divorce’ at much higher rates.”

    Remind me of when “permanence” also became a legal prerequisite for a civil marriage license. When was this, exactly? And how come the law is blatantly ignoring this prerequisite and allowing 50% of all married couples to get divorced?

    “Given how rapidly things have been changing, it’s reasonable to ask what else may be subject to change.”

    —Except a slippery slope argument is not an argument. It’s what’s called a “logical fallacy.” Your side uses it to create potential “consequences” of same-sex marriage and then uses those alleged consequences (which actually haven’t happened yet) as evidence for why we shouldn’t have same-sex marriage….in a country where nearly half of our nation’s population has access to it….(?!).

    If polygamists and “throuples” want civil marriage licenses, they’re going to have make their arguments in both courts (law/public opinion), just like we did. It’s not our job to answer for them or what they do. Besides, polygamy has been a felony in this country since the 19th Century. Polygamists have had over 100+ years to think of an equal protection argument. The idea that they all of the sudden have one now that two-person gay couples can marry in 19 states + D.C. is downright laughable.

    It’s unfortunate that your side has taken to a completely subjective definition of marriage that is not codified in a single state or federal law as your principle argument against same-sex marriage. Seriously—procreation, permanence and monogamy? Can you please tell me which of Rush Limbaugh’s FOUR childless marriages best fits this definition? How about Newt Gingrich and this THREE marriages, the first two which ended due to his infidelity? Yet in every single instance, Limbaugh and Gingrich were able to get a marriage license that was legally recognized in all 50 states.

    How come Rush Limbaugh can burn through four failed marriages and Bob and Roger can’t even have one failed marriage?

    What you don’t realize is that Ryan’s “definition” of marriage isn’t a definition at all. It’s Catholic dogma dressed up as pseudo-intellectual philosophy; a handy primer for religious talking heads to sound like they’re making a sound constitutional argument. Ryan likes to repeat himself—over and over in one identically-written editorial after another–but his arguments are losing badly in both courts.

    One last thing, which democratic processes are we skipping here? Last I checked, the American people overwhelmingly re-elected Ronald Reagan in 1984, who in 1987 appointed Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court, who 26 years later wrote the majority opinion in the SCOTUS decision that struck down Section 3 of DOMA.

    Extrapolate that story to every single federal court decision that’s been handed down since. Every single federal judge has been appointed by every single democratically-elected President from Nixon to Obama. You do understand how federal courts work, right? Or are you just mad because they’re not ruling the way you want them to?

    Taking a constitutional grievance to a federal courthouse isn’t “skipping the democratic process.” That IS the democratic process!

    Unless you think public schools in the South de-segregated themselves?

    • ForChristAlone

      Chris, here’s a hint: no one in his or her right mind is going to bother reading this nonsense.

      • DE-173

        I’m beginning to think that there should be no ghost posts. Either you have a DISQUS ID, or you don’t post.

        • Chris

          Disqus ID created 😉

          • DE-173

            You’ll be like so many before you, and the people that put their “art” on railroad cards.

            • Chris

              Meaning….??

              • DE-173

                This isn’t preschool. Figure it out yourself.

      • Chris

        Why not give it a read and try to refute what I wrote? “Too many words!” is not an argument.

        • ForChristAlone

          Too many disconnected thoughts…scattershot approach…undisciplined…etc

          • Chris

            I guess that’s a no.

            This is why marriage equality is coming to all 50 states. 🙂

            • ForChristAlone

              Have at it. But you should know that this is only an ersatz “marriage.” Have fun at Disneyworld.

              • Chris

                According to you. I doubt the millions of LGBT couples who now have access to full state and federal marriage equality in 19 states care what you think is a real marriage and what’s an “ersatz” marriage.

                • ForChristAlone

                  an ersatz marriage is a counterfeit for the real thing – an inferior imitation and no substitute for the real mccoy (despite what those who are complicit in this derangement might say to the contrary).

                  • Chris

                    I know what the word means, thanks.

                    And you do realize that calling same-sex marriages “counterfeit” isn’t a constitutional argument either, right?

                    • GG

                      Can the court legalize square circles too?

                    • Gal

                      Apparently so, according to Chris. And it can declare a donkey a horse, too. This is fun! what else can we redefine at a whim?

                    • GG

                      Yes, it is called tyranny.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      2+2=5

                    • James

                      Yes, if the legal definition of a square includes circles.

                      Of course, mathematicians will insist that it is nonsense, but that isn’t relevant in court.

    • DE-173

      “38 (yes, thirty-eight) court decisions in the last 14 months.”

      A veritable groundswell of judicial EDICTS.

    • R. K. Ich

      Yet, for all your bluster, you’ve failed to answer the basic question: “What is marriage?”

      Let’s begin there. Everything else is just irrelevant.

      • Chris

        Maybe “everything else” is “irrelevant” to you, but that “everything else” is precisely what we’re discussing in court. Have you read ANY of the federal decisions that have been handed down?

        Marriage is defined by whoever is issued a marriage license. “Everything else,” as it pertains to procreation, monogamy and permanence (as explained by the author of this piece) is the couple’s business and nobody else’s. THAT’S the stuff that’s irrelevant.

        Unless you can point to a single federal or state law where your definition of marriage is listed?

        • R. K. Ich

          So philosophy to you is immaterial to jurisprudence? How does one begin to even determine if a law is a bad one or a good one if the subject under discussion, Man, is not properly understood?

          • Chris

            There’s absolutely no “philosophy” to be found in the author’s definition of marriage (which was sourced by the Heritage Foundation). Ryan T. Anderson isn’t a philosopher. He’s a Catholic shill.

            Moreover, courts don’t deal in philosophy. “Good laws and bad laws” are determined by their rational basis and which government interest they further. Laws banning same-sex couples from marrying serve absolutely no such purpose. That’s been demonstrated again and again and again.

            Unless you can point a single government interest that’s been furthered by a “marriage protection” law?

            • R. K. Ich

              “Courts don’t deal in philosophy” — really? The idea that “all men are created equal” is simply a utilitarian observation?

              You confirm my observation: Secularist radicals are not interest in debate, just judicial fiat peppered with words like “freedom” and “rights” — all of which are deeply philosophical questions.

              • Chris

                Treating everyone equally (a la the 14th Amendment) serves a rational government purpose. 🙂

                You do realize that you just implicitly made an argument FOR same-sex marriage, right?

                • R. K. Ich

                  You didn’t answer my question, naturally. You never told me why equality is a-philosophical.

                  • Chris

                    I never said it wasn’t. But just because you can pepper some philosophical idea with your Catholic ideology doesn’t mean you’ve got a solid constitutional argument against same-sex marriage.

                    Still waiting for a single government interest that’s being furthered by legally prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying…..

                    • R. K. Ich

                      You never delineated what constitutes government interest. So until we iron out terms I think you can see there’s no progress in debate.

                    • Chris

                      You’re the one advocating to keep LGBT couples from legally marrying. You tell ME what government interest is being served here.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      I never brought up the phrase “government interest” — you did. Since you used the term, please tell me what you mean by it. Or do I have define a phrase for you even if I never used it?

                    • Chris

                      I’m going to go ahead and assume you have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about. All good. You wouldn’t be the first.

                      Educate yourself. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis

                      Then take the marriage laws that we’re currently fighting in court and see if you can apply the rational basis test.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      Okay, I read the article. I understand the definition of rational review. The government is interested (if this is what I understand you to be saying) in upholding the constitution, even if subsequent laws are “stupid”. So by your admission (if you accept the wiki article), allowing pseudogamy is possibly stupid, but since it falls under the “equal protection” then the higher principle is that it be allowed in order to fulfill constitutional guidelines.

                      Great, you’ve told me nothing I didn’t know up til now. I already knew the job of the governing authorities is to uphold principles of the Constitution. The underlying question is, What does the Constitute serve to do? I say that, it is to enshrine the principles to honor the dignity of Man. If a law undermines those principles, what power could that law possibly have?

                    • Chris

                      Thank you for doing the research. We’re getting somewhere!

                      Now can you please apply said rational review to the marriage laws that we’re currently fighting in court?

                      In other words, how are laws banning same-sex couples from marrying constitutional?

                    • R. K. Ich

                      It is constitutional if it protects the dignity of Man. But you don’t want to engage in that question. So if you won’t answer, “What is Man?” all the discussion about equality and rights means nothing, because we won’t know if a law is upholding the constitution.

                    • Chris

                      I’m sorry but the “Dignity of Man” isn’t a constitutional argument. You’re deliberately trying to sidestep into philosophy when all I’m asking is for you to name ONE government interest that is being furthered/protected by laws that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. Just one.

                      If you can’t name one, then just say you can’t name one and we’ll move on.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      So, let me get this straight: the Constitution does not rest on the presupposition of the dignity of man?

                      The difference between the secularist and the sane man is that sanity seeks understanding, not blind obedience.

                      You want me to name a “government interest” and I stated preservation of the principles of the constitution as my answer.

                      You won’t discuss those principles. That’s the real sticking point here. You *can’t* because it requires you move into grounds that secularists can’t move and breathe in without choking. If I’m wrong then prove me wrong, but it sure looks that way by your unwillingness to engage the deep questions.

                      North Korea and the Taliban would like your kind, I have no doubt.

                    • Chris

                      “You want me to name a ‘government interest’ and I stated preservation of the principles of the constitution as my answer.”

                      WRONG! Read the court decisions. Those laws flagrantly violate the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment. There’s dozens of said decisions online. For free. Give them a read.

                      I’m not seeking blind obedience. You can believe whatever the hell you want about gays and their marriages. But you have absolutely no place having civil laws reflect these beliefs when they serve absolutely no rational purpose and seek only to harm LGBT couples and their families.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      I’m sorry, no harm has been done to you or your nature. You won’t discuss with me “What Man is” so you I’m supposing you very well know because of your recalcitrance. And furthermore, your whining about “harm” is all hogwash since you can only harm what is healthy. Same sex unions is not marriage, no matter how much you wish it to be. There is no union because there is nothing complimentary; you are in love with a mirror image.

                    • Chris

                      Let’s try something anecdotal:

                      Bob and Roger, who’ve been together for 35 years, live in a state that doesn’t recognize their same-sex marriage which was performed in New York.

                      Bob gets sick with cancer. Not only is Roger not allowed to visit Bob in the hospital (since their state doesn’t recognize their marriage), but probate courts refuse to recognize Roger as Bob’s spouse and thus throw out Bob’s will which named Roger as his beneficiary.

                      Those are just three very demonstrable harms.

                      Then you wrote these gems: “You can only harm what is healthy” and “Same sex unions is not marriage, no matter how much you wish it to be.”

                      And now the cloak has been removed. No matter what the courts say or how much society evolves, to you, same-sex relationships will always be unhealthy and their unions are not marriages regardless of their legality.

                      That’s not a constitutional argument. It’s only a circular one. “It’s not a marriage” is what Ryan reverts to when he’s challenged on the very same talking points the author of this piece spouted above. And it’s why your side is losing so spectacularly.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      Okay, Bob and Roger don’t require their peculiar friendship to be canonized as “marriage” when it clearly cannot even take place due to biological barriers. The laws can be amended for specific cases. Remember, marriage is under consideration here.

                      Now, for the “circular argument” point. It’s not circular at all. I say marriage is by definition a covenant between man and woman, not by any law enacted by men, but by the reason of nature and what man is. This is beyond the reach of the law, just like “all men are created equal” is beyond the reach of the law. The law can only be framed to reflect these fundamentals of the world.

                      You’re in a world of hurt if you think the State will always pass laws in conformity to the Principles of the Constitution. If I ask you why pseudogamy should be accepted, you say, “Because the State says so.” That tells me who will hold me accountable to their judgments; not “why” a law is passed. You then say, “society is evolving,” but what does that mean? That’s just saying things are always changing. But what does that prove? Societies move from position A to position B? Okay, but that doesn’t tell me if we ought to be there or if it honors the intent of the Constitution.

                      Back in the late 90’s when I was first aware of the rumblings of the push for pseudogamy, my response was the same. At no time did I think, “Because the State always knows when to pass just laws.” It’s principled based on the nature of the Constitution, which tries to protect the Dignity and Nature of Man. But you won’t answer that question, so you’re no less “circular” I’m afraid —

                      Stupid Christian: “So, why should I accept pseudogamy?”
                      Enlightened Radical: “Because it’s now Law and society Evolves.”
                      Stupid Christian: “What if the laws are wrongly founded and society is actually taking a turn for the worse?”
                      Enlightened Radical: “Can’t be, we are evolving, see? Good laws and progress are inevitable?”
                      Stupid Christian: “How do you know that?”
                      Enlightened Radical: “Because now I’m free to call my peculiar friendship a ‘marriage’.”
                      Stupid Christian: “How is that not circular?”
                      Enlightened Radical: “You’re on the wrong side of history. Enough already.”

                    • Chris

                      “Okay, Bob and Roger don’t require their peculiar friendship to be canonized as ‘marriage’ when it clearly cannot even take place due to biological barriers.”

                      “Peculiar friendship?” Are you even familiar with the concept of homosexual relationships? Or homosexuality for that matter?

                    • R. K. Ich

                      Are you even familiar with the concept of marriage?
                      See how that works?

                      I say, “peculiar friendship,” because that engagement is outside the norm. No particular reason to grace it with language reserved for the standards of man’s nature. I’m not saying you derive no comforts thereby; it’s just not natural.

                    • Chris

                      You view homosexual relationships as abnormal, then?

                    • R. K. Ich

                      Without exception.

                    • Chris

                      You’re telling me alllll I need to know. 🙂

                    • R. K. Ich

                      LOL! Why, duh!

                    • Chris

                      Again, this is why we’re winning in court. One side is making sound constitutional arguments. The other side thinks being gay is just a behavior and that gay relationships are just sexualized, “peculiar” and “abnormal” friendships….because the Bible says so.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      I don’t recall quoting the Bible as my defense for true marriage. Even a pagan can understand my arguments. As for you, again I note, you actually don’t answer any questions when people try to get to the essence of a thing; you simply plug your ears and say, “Because infallible courts and inevitably progressive societies say otherwise.” Well, if that’s all it takes to know if something is right or wrong, why even ask “why” if government is infallible and all other questioning is considered invalid?

                      But thanks for playing, Chris. I can’t say I’m happy for your deathly engagement, to the detriment of your soul and our civilization; and I’m especially sad that your reason has been cauterized, St. Paul calls it being “reprobate”. I can be sad for you because in your case there is a real tragedy because of the dignity you are busily burying in destructive and abnormal behavior. I can love you and be sad for you.

                      But, you know, the State knows best, so who am I?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      religion has nothing to do with it. It’s just natural law which we are capable of knowing through use of reason which is why you’re having a difficult time justifying your lifestyle

                    • Gal

                      Abnormal is the opposite of normal. The normal outcome of sexual intercourse is procreation. The outcome of sexual activity on the part of homosexuals is never reproduction. That is the opposite of normal-abnormal.

                      The reason that you feel you are winning when the definition of a word is used properly is only because the electorate isn’t very bright. Years in institutional school neglected logic and reason in favor of niceness over all.

                    • Crisiseditor

                      Federal judges who have overturned state marriage laws are abandoning precedent, the Constitution and reason. They are imposing their personal opinions on an unwilling public in a tyrannical fashion. Don’t tell us you are winning over the public with sound arguments when the fact is that public opinion becomes irrelevant when your cause advances only when a leftist court forces its ideology down our throats. For evidence, see this Crisis article: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/rational-legal-basis-traditional-marriage

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Absolutely. 100% abnormal.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Abnormal refers to issues of frequency. So, a more apt descriptor is disordered aka unnatural.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      I can accept that distinction, FCA. It’s clearly unnatural. But, hey, if he won’t answer, “What is Man?” then it doesn’t matter whether such a perversion militates against his good or not.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      When there is no God, one cannot satisfactorily answer the question who man is. This, to me, is his quandary.

                    • DE-173

                      Of course.

                    • GG

                      Homofascists indeed.

                    • DE-173

                      Better tell that to Anthony Kennedy.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Stop calling it marriage; it is not.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      FCA, don’t even bother — civiliphobes can’t register that language has organic meaning behind. C.S. Lewis would have called their use of the term “marriage” verbicide.

                    • DE-173

                      You have ideology. Stop projecting.

                    • Gal

                      Why do homosexuals want marriage? Tax breaks?

                      Oh, yes, equality. If the government says you are the same as a man and woman then it is so.

                      Last I checked, homosexuals cannot reproduce within their sex act. That makes a homosexual relationship not equal to a heterosexual one. Once you can eliminate reproduction altogether from sexual intercourse, you will never be equal.

                    • Chris

                      Last I checked, elderly and infertile straight couples can’t reproduce within their sex act either. By your logic, that makes their relationship not equal to fertile heterosexual relationships.

                      Shall we ban elderly and infertile couples from marrying as well, since we’ve effectively “eliminated” reproduction altogether from THEIR sexual intercourse?

                    • Gal

                      Effectively eliminated are the key words. You are comparing statistical improbability versus statistical impossibilities.

                      Furthermore, elderly couples that marry do nothing to change the the legal realm of marriage from a child’s perspective. See, historically, marriage was arranged from the child’s perspective.

                      Same sex marriage is from the adults desires, not the child’s needs and changes the child’s legal landscape.

                    • Chris

                      “See, historically, marriage was arranged from the child’s perspective.”

                      That is completely and utterly wrong, not to mention pure Catholic nonsense. If marriage was EVER “arranged from a child’s perspective,” then divorce would be outlawed in all 50 states.

                      Menopause isn’t an improbability. It’s an impossibility. Check your science books.

                      “Furthermore, elderly couples that marry do nothing to change the the legal realm of marriage from a child’s perspective.”

                      —You’re going to need to flesh this one out because it makes absolutely no sense. Which child’s perspective is involved when you have a married straight couple with no children? There is no child!

                    • R. K. Ich

                      The state can’t force people to pro-create, because traditional unions do not guarantee children will be born — the state can only recognize the necessary objective entities required for unions.

                    • Chris

                      Just caught this comment. ANOTHER argument for same-sex marriage. 🙂

                    • Gal

                      Yes, there are children! A vast majority of male female marriages result in a child. So marriage is defined with those children in mind. Elderly men and women and the possibly infertile do nothing to change the legal landscape for the children.

                    • Chris

                      I asked you to flesh out that last sentence. Instead, you just repeated it.

                      What in the hell are you talking about?!

                    • Gal

                      Sorry, I thought you understood what marriage is. Here, I’ll flesh it out for you.

                      Without the differentiation of sex in marriage, there are no longer just a man and woman marriage. Therefore, there are no longer a wife and husband, just partners, legally (because the law would need to be written to include man-woman, man-man, and woman-woman marriages). Also removed would be mother and father from the birth certificate, replaced by parent 1 and parent 2. Again, legally the birth certificate would need to include man-woman, man-man, and woman-woman marriages and parent1 and parent 2 are the only legal option. So now, with same sex marriage, we have legally removed the rights of a child to know his/her mother and father by removing the sex difference from the marriage,

                    • Chris

                      I wasn’t aware that a child had a “right” to “know” his/her biological mother/father.

                      How do we even allow divorce, if that’s the case? Or adoption?

                    • Gal

                      So you don’t care if children don’t know their biological parents? The government has all sorts of laws around protecting children to keep them with family. you want to throw this away so gays can marry? is that what you are saying?

                    • Chris

                      Which laws specifically are you referring to?

                      If a child’s biological parents are discarding him/her into the foster care/adoption system, then it’s probably a safe bet that no matter how much a child may want to “know” his bio parents, those parents probably don’t want to know the child, or don’t have the faculties to actually be parents (due to addiction, crime, etc.). Again, the vast majority of children growing up in same-sex households fall into that category.

                    • Gal

                      The entire family court system is set up to keep children with their parents first, family second. Don’t be deliberately stupid.

                      And if biological parents are that bad, such that they don’t want to or can’t care for their children, then it is a tragedy. As a society when this happens, we should give the children the next best thing, man woman adoption because it mirrors the biological reality.

                      And I know of children who fell into this category and were adopted by a same sex couple. This could split up and it got nasty. One of the partners rescinded all legal rights to the children-the same children that loved this parent best. Why? So to avoid having to give money to the ex. Stand-up same sex parenting there!

                    • R. K. Ich

                      Difference is, Chris, those conditions are accidental to their ontology. Oldness and infertility are not specific to gender.

                    • Chris

                      Menopause isn’t accidental. It’s a biological fact of life.

                      I never said age or fertility was a gender category. I was responding to a comment about reproduction.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      Menopause is accidental because it doesn’t define a woman; and there’s nothing to preclude adoption in that scenario. Back to kids, see?

                    • Chris

                      “…But there’s nothing to preclude adoption in that scenario.”

                      —Another argument FOR same-sex marriage. You’re on a roll today. 🙂

                    • R. K. Ich

                      I note, however, you never get around to answering my questions about Man. So you want me to blindly adopt your position on your say? Or because it is reasonable? If it is reasonable, then let’s reason about it. If you don’t want to reason about it, then why are you here?

                    • Chris

                      I’m glad you asked because your last comment is the reason I’m here.

                      Gal said gays can’t reproduce. I replied that neither can elderly or infertile couples. You replied that couples who are infertile can adopt. I replied that that’s an argument FOR same-sex marriage, since same-sex couples can adopt too.

                      THAT is why I’m here. Unless you thought that legal same-sex marriage was some liberal, anti-Catholic conspiracy conjured up by Obama, gay millionaires and “activist” judges—I’m here to show you that there’s a reason why those anti-gay marriage laws have fallen so spectacularly by the wayside.

                      We’re no different than anyone else. 🙂

                    • R. K. Ich

                      And, if those laws had stood, what principle would you have appealed to in order to get them repealed?

                    • Chris

                      The same principle that got them repealed: Equal protection under the law, aka the 14th Amendment. 🙂

                    • R. K. Ich

                      Equal protection means anything and everything?

                    • Asmondius

                      Will ‘law’ make your Mom interchangeable with a man?

                    • Asmondius

                      So is gender. Live it.

                    • Asmondius

                      All heterosexual relationships are complementary, unitive, and open to life whether circumstances bring new life or not.

                      Homosexual relationships are disordered and forever closed to life regardless of circumstances.

                      You underlined an interesting point – the best comparison you can seem to make between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual one is a case where the heterosexuals are dysfunctional sexually.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      Wow, your responses have been quite enjoyable, keep them coming. 🙂

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Be careful. They might force the government to level the playing field to eliminate the “advantaged class.”

                    • Gal

                      I wouldn’t put it past them. See the new birth certificate law in California.

                    • DE-173

                      Tssk, Tskk, Tskk.. Click on “GAL” and “Chris” comes up…
                      TROLL ALERT.

                    • Steve

                      Wait til Chris and his ilk sue God to have natural law declared unconstitutional. Its not fair that heterals can reproduce without turkey basters and suragates.

                    • Asmondius

                      Marriage is based upon the biological reality of the human race.

                • DE-173

                  Well then, we must make marriage available to pre-pubescent females, polygamists, and imbeciles.

                  • Chris

                    Yeyy more slipperly slope arugments!!!

                    Seriously, can’t anybody here refute ANYTHING I wrote above?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      I was trying to be helpful to you when i informed you that people aren’t likely to read those long-winded screeds. Now quit complaining.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      I can’t refute what you won’t define. If you won’t help me understand what you intend by terms, then how do you expect me to refute your claims?

                    • Gal

                      You just contradicted yourself. You want “treating everyone equally” and then call this equal treatment a slippery slope when DK mentions the desires of polygamists and pedophiles.

                    • Chris

                      I called the sudden decriminalization and legalization of polygamy AND pedophilia (as occasioned by legalized same-sex marriage) a slippery slope because that’s the VERY definition of a slippery-slope argument.

                    • Gal

                      But what grounds have you of stopping the legalization of pedophilia and polygamy? Because it is icky? You refuse that same argument for homosexual relationships.

                      Explain your reasons for denying polygamists and pedophiles their “equal treatment” with regards to their sexual desires.

                    • Chris

                      As I’ve written above, I don’t personally have anything against polygamy, insofar as the multiple marriages are consensual, and nobody is being victimized. Let them go to court and make their arguments. That’s what the courts are for.

                      But I don’t think I have to remind you that the whole consent and victimization thing presents a bit of a problem when it comes to sexual relationships with children? There’s a reason that sort of thing is against the law…..

                    • Gal

                      So you complain about our slippery slope argument and then say you are for polygamy? You were fear mongering, then.

                      Ok, so we agree children should be protected. Then why don’t you protect the rights if a child to know his/her mother and father? Same sex marriage takes this right away.

                      Lastly, you need to ditch the “treating everyone equally” canard if you agree with us that pedophiles shouldn’t be treated equally. What you are doing is elevating homosexual relations beyond its biological functions by granting them marriage.

                    • Chris

                      I’m not “for” polygamy. I don’t care one way or another. It’s been illegal since 1890? Doesn’t affect me. It’s suddenly legalized because of two guys can now marry in 19 states? Doesn’t affect me either.

                      “Ok, so we agree children should be protected. Then why don’t you protect the rights if a child to know his/her mother and father?”

                      —The vast majority of children being raised by same-sex parents were abandoned by their biological mothers/fathers. How else do you think they ended up in foster care in the first place?

                      As for same-sex parents who have bio children from prior heterosexual relationships, what makes you think that opposite-sex bio parent suddenly doesn’t exist anymore? Co-parenting still applies.

                      “Same sex marriage takes this right away.”

                      —It absolutely does not. Especially when you’re talking about LGBT couples who have no children.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      are you for or against incestuous marriages? Could you (if you so chose) marry your father?

                    • Chris

                      My father is deceased so no I cannot marry him.

                      Incestuous couples fit your definition of marriage better than they fit mine. After all, a brother and a sister can reproduce. But you see, the health risks involved in—big word alert–consanguinity are well-established. That’s a rational interest right there.

                      As for same-sex relatives, there’s also issues of consent and victimization. Perhaps YOU know a father and a son of completely sound mind involved in a consensual romantic relationship, but I haven’t met one. Nine times out of ten, we’re dealing with an child abuser and his grown victim.

                      But hey—if you know such a couple, tell me about them.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      You’re having difficulty with hypotheticals or are you just being obtuse?.

                    • Asmondius

                      Dodge.

                    • DE-173

                      “But you see, the health risks involved in—big word alert–consanguinity are well-established. That’s a rational interest right there.”

                      In addition to your other ignorances, you don’t seem to understand concentration risk. Consanguinity concentrates genes in the offspring. It can concentrate good genes as well as bad ones, so you end up with more geniuses and more mentally impaired.

                      My family was aware of a man who was the product of incest (father/daughter). He practiced law successfully for thirty years. It doesn’t not always result in defects. A couple in Brazil just learned they were biological siblings that married. There was no mention that their child had any health issues.

                      Your activities result in nothing, except disease.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      A close Christian friend of mine said it this way: “If somebody keeps sticking his **** in [feces] he will eventually get sick.” It’s not rocket science. It’s not healthy. It’s not normal.

                    • GG

                      He is for it. Anyone who embraces the gay agenda embraces all that comes with it.

                    • Gal

                      What about anonymous donor-ship to same sex couples? They get to know their opposite sex parent? And the abandoned child should be denied parental relationships of those of opposite sex because same sex couples feel they have a right to adopt children?

                      Children end up in foster care because of our crumbling family landscape, which has everything to do with government intrusion, but this is a discussion for another time.

                    • Chris

                      What about anonymous donor-ship to infertile opposite-sex couples? Do those children get to know their donor?

                      And same-sex couples “feel they have a right to adopt children”? Another commenter who thinks gay adoption is all about entitlement. Not like we really care about those kids, do we? What a disgusting remark.

                      I sure hope you’re consistent, though. Since donor-conceived children and children adopted by same-sex couples are being “denied” parental relationships of at least one opposite-sex parent, that means you’re against single parenting right?

                    • Asmondius

                      Homosexual adopters or beneficiaries of Frankensteinien fertility technology deny a child a mother or a father on purpose – forever.

                    • Asmondius

                      ‘The vast majority of children being raised by same-sex parents were abandoned by their biological mothers/fathers…’

                      Now you are just blowing smoke.

                      The majority of children in homosexual households are there due to divorce or the discontinuation of a non-marital heterosexual relationship.

                    • Asmondius

                      Lovers of boys swear that their relationships are consensual.

                    • Asmondius

                      But polygamists and pedophiles want to be ‘equal ‘ as well.

                    • GG

                      Slippery slope is not always a fallacy. Have you ever lived in society?

                    • DE-173

                      Never let facts get in the way of a good rant.

                    • DE-173

                      Everybody has, but you can’t seem to understand.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Define “government interest.” Your postings are extremely confusing and nonsensical.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      OT… been there, done that. He wouldn’t answer that for me when I asked. It’s just a was-nose term meant to say, “Whatever the State says is its interest.” Only shows that radical secularists are interested in the Will to Power, not reasonable engagement.

                    • Asmondius

                      Well, what has male on male sex brought to society?

                    • DE-173

                      HIV, aka, GRIDS (Gay Related ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome). The investigating authorities even tracked the introduction here to a homosexual airline steward of “unusual stamina”.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    …….And ponies, necrophiliacs, Lay-Z Boy recliners and F/A 18 strike fighters. When you start to take the ride down the slippery slope of immorality, momentum can really build. Everyone/thing deserves a seat at the marriage table.

                  • GG

                    Well, the last group is gaining ground. See posts right here.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      My day is now complete…I can close out having had the laugh of the day. Thanks

                • Asmondius

                  If we have to ‘treat everyone equally’, why are there diffeent rules in society for men and women? For example, young females don’t have to register with the draft when they turn 18, but males do.

                  • DE-173

                    No a woman can’t be drafted, but she can get stars.

              • DE-173

                “just judicial fiat peppered with words like “freedom” and “rights””
                The cheap ornaments of tyrannists everywhere.

            • ForChristAlone

              check out how far the ‘rationalists’ got by the end of 18th c France.

              • Chris

                Can YOU point to a single government interest that’s been furthered by a “marriage protection” law, @ForChristAlone:disqus?

                Anybody….??

                • R. K. Ich

                  What’s a government interest?

                  • Chris

                    LOL! Of course you don’t know…

                    But hey ya know what—I will accept that a satisfactory answer. 🙂

                    • R. K. Ich

                      So, you won’t answer what you believe constitutes government interest?

                  • DE-173

                    Whatever the goverment says it is, you know like locking up persons of Japanese ancestry.

                • Asmondius

                  A stable society.

                • GG

                  Children

            • DE-173

              What kind of shill are you?

            • Asmondius

              Judges are human beings and are therefore subject to error. Law is not science.

        • ForChristAlone

          If marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing (except of course if you’re an orthodox Catholic and then you know that what it means has nothing to do with what any one of us might ‘think’ it means.)

          • DE-173

            “If marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing”
            “I saw Satan laughing with delight…”

        • DE-173

          “Marriage is defined by whoever is issued a marriage license.”
          All bow to the state.

          Sorry, but the idea that the state is the proper regulator of marriage is that of Luther and Henry Tudor. Perhaps you’d be more comfortable at an Anglican Lutheran or statist website.

          We only believe the state to be a registrar, not the custodian with unlimited powers of appointment.

          • Chris

            “Sorry, but the idea that the state is the proper regulator of marriage is that of Luther and Henry Tudor.”

            —-Who issued you YOUR marriage license, then?

            • DE-173

              My marriage was registered with a County (interestingly not where the vows were exchanged, so they had no jurisdiction), under duress and mostly so they could get $100.

              They had nothing to do with the preparation for the exchange of vows.

              Its funny how we get the chant that the government shouldn’t be in anybody’s bedroom and shouldn’t come betwen a woman and her doctor, but here we’re all supposed invite government into the marital bedroom to get between a woman and her husband.

              I await a satisfactory answer to that inconsistency.

              • Chris

                County registrars report to—wait for it!!!—-the STATE!!

                Awwwwwww!!! Another right-wing #Fail. But hey at least you’re learning how government works! 🙂

                • R. K. Ich

                  The irony is when some same sex ceremonies were being conducted against the laws of the state as a form of protest (to make a point about freedom, equality, etc), they were making a principled (but mistakenly applied) stand that they were accounted equal before the law. All this talk about Man’s dignity and equality seems to have trumped bad laws. So if there’s an Amendment to the Constitution that makes it explicit that same sex people cannot marry, would you then sit down and shut up? Or would you proceed to fight on other principles? And what would those principles be?

                  • Chris

                    An Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

                    You speak of this amendment as if it has any chance of being ratified by a 2/3 majority of the House AND Senate, PLUS ratification in 38 (yes, thirty-eight) states?

                    Yea no. You’ve got just as much chance of amending the U.S. Constitution to outlaw freedom of religion…. 😉

                    • R. K. Ich

                      I note you didn’t answer the question. I didn’t ask, “What’s the likelihood,” I’m asking on what principle would you push for your pseudogamy?

                      So let’s frame it this way, if it’s not absolutely impossible for this amendment (because you can’t say it’s absolutely impossible without being infallibly prescient), then on what ground would you proceed to fight for your pseudogamy?

                    • DE-173

                      “I note you didn’t answer the question. ”
                      He comes here with firm purposes of evasion.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      Propaganda doesn’t know dialogue and debate; it’s a monologue with the force of law. It shouts down until you sit down.

                    • DE-173

                      You’ve got just as much chance of amending the U.S. Constitution to outlaw freedom of religion…. 😉
                      Who needs that when there’s a pen and a phone.

                    • Asmondius

                      Freedom of religion is mentioned specifically – sodomy is not.

                • DE-173

                  You need to decide whether your hate is going to be directed against Catholics or the the “right-wing”. I guess that must be tough when you have to keep telling yourself the back door is the right entry for guests.

                • Objectivetruth

                  You didn’t have an answer for him, so you resorted to the classic liberal/atheist/secular tactic of immaturely mocking, attacking, and name calling.

                  Typical, but pathetic.

                  • R. K. Ich

                    I asked a dozen times for answers: none. Jam the airwaves, entertain no questions: it’s what brainwashed cultists do.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Agreed….

                • Asmondius

                  We love you, Chris. We acknowledge that you are crying out for adult love.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Yes. Love, as a man for a woman – his complement.

            • ForChristAlone

              You would be surprised, my dear friend, to learn that even though the State issued him a marriage license, there is no way that the State could dissolve his marriage. He did NOT become married when the State issued his license. He only became married when he publicly entered into a covenant with his wife (who can only be a woman despite what you think). You labor under Statist thjnking but that’s not really your fault as you were forced into thinking this way by the State run school system.

            • Asmondius

              The license is a piece of paper – the vow and the bond are sworn before and blessed by God.

          • James

            Which is why I was taught as a Catholic that the Sacrament of Marriage was what mattered in the eyes of God and what happened at the courthouse was simply a legal document.

            I was also taught that one could end a legal marriage in divorce court, but that the couple was still married in the eyes of God.
            (An annulment tribunal could determine the validity of the marriage, but no one could dissolve a valid marriage.)

            Therefore, the issue of civil marriage is not a matter of faith, but public policy. Perhaps there is a good case for broad-based marriage reform to make civil marriage more restrictive, but few are making that case and even fewer want the government that involved in people’s personal lives.

            The courts have ruled that there is no rational basis for restricting civil marriage as it currently exists in the United States to heterosexual couples. While public opinion has been dominated by emotion and sentimentality, the courts have heard all the arguments presented, addressed them, and rejected them.

        • Gal

          I’ll answer the question for you, Chris. Marriage is the union of the mother and father for the benefit of their children.

          • Chris

            So a married couple with no children, (due to age, infertility or simply because they decided not to have children) isn’t actually a married couple?

            • ForChristAlone

              You really ought to read more on the Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II if you are going to betray such nonsensical and fundamentally flawed ideas such as this. And if you say you’re not interested in Catholic thinking, I would ask you why you are here wasting our time. Either get steeped in orthodox Catholic thinking or go elsewhere since you are not at all interested in learning what and how we think about important things but in trying to disabuse us of what we do think and profess as Catholics. If you can muster up some humility there are plenty of us here who would relish the opportunity to share the deep learning of the Catholic faith. But try to be honest in one way: ask yourself what your intent is here?

        • Asmondius

          Another Google lawyer – how droll.

    • cestusdei

      Chris, another day and another homosexual activist ignores what is said and spouts ideology and hate.

    • redfish

      “If polygamists and ‘throuples’ want civil marriage licenses, they’re going to have make their arguments in both courts (law/public opinion), just like we did. It’s not our job to answer for them or what they do.”

      No, but it is the job of a judge sitting on a court to come up with logically consistent, sound rulings that fit in with precedent. A good jurist would be able to answer, given that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t understand that it would require polygamy or inter-familial marriage to be accepted in law, why would the Fourteenth Amendment require same-sex marriage, something they didn’t even think of at the time. A jurist that avoids answering that in his opinion (which they have) isn’t doing his job.

      No, its not your job, but it would be nice if you had an honest answer to that question, too. Since this shouldn’t be treated as a game that you win or lose.

      You’re contradicting yourself when you say courts don’t deal with philosophy, yet but they determine the rational basis of laws. Courts just determine what they’re empowered to do by the Constitution. Rational basis, in so far as it exists, is just a tool that helps them do their job. But “is this rational?” is a question of philosophy. If that forms the sole basis of their decision, the courts are doing philosophy, not law.

      • Chris

        “Rational basis, in so far as it exists, is just a tool that helps them do their job. But ‘is this rational?’ is a question of philosophy. If that forms the sole basis of their decision, the courts are doing philosophy, not law.”

        —Oh I see. Assuming you’re against same-sex marriage, I guess the 38 pro-equality decisions that have been handed down since 2013 are all examples of bad philosophy? How come you’re right and all of those judges are wrong? What are they missing?

        Nobody ever said that the 14th “requires” same-sex marriage. Our side is merely saying that constitutional bans against same-sex marriage are a violation of our equal protection rights that were guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

        The Framers didn’t have freed slaves (13th Amendment) or women’s suffrage (19th Amendment) in mind either. Society evolved and so did our laws.

        “No, its not your job, but it would be nice if you had an honest answer to that question, too.”

        —I honestly don’t care what the polygamists of the world do with their lives. It’s none of my business. As long as they’re not a danger to themselves or to others, I couldn’t care less if they desire to have 7 wives and 47 children. That’s their business. Not mine.

        But that doesn’t mean the floodgates to polygamy are all of the sudden blown open after a 100+ year prohibition just because Adam and Steve can marry in 19 states. That’s a complete logical disconnect and not at all connected to what we’re arguing in court.

        • DE-173

          They said society was evolving on Krystallnact, too.

          Polygamy has a longer history than Adam and Steve. If you can extend marriage to two people of the same sex, you have no reason to deny it Islamic or Momon fundamentalists.

          • Chris

            Then how come polygamy is still illegal?

            I’m surprised it took THIS long for someone on this comment board to compare same-sex marriage advocates to the Nazis. Congrats! 🙂

            • DE-173

              “Then how come polygamy is still illegal”.
              Because there aren’t yet enough Muslims or fundamentalist Mormons to get votes from through pandering. You really aren’t very erudite, are you?

            • DE-173

              Would you prefer to be compared to Bolsheviks?

          • ForChristAlone

            How about incestuous “marriage?” I wonder what our resident philosopher would say about that. Could Chris marry his father if he so chose? He would have to argue for that, I would think.

            • R. K. Ich

              Trying to get Secularist Radicals to think out the implications of their position is a herculean task — they have to actually posit they could POSSIBLY be mistaken.

          • R. K. Ich

            Exactly… there is after all no “government interest” in denying polygamy. Also, I note how the secularist loves the slippery slope argument too. “If you deny gay rights, you could also deny interracial marriage.” So much easier than discussing whether the two are in the same category.

            • Gal

              Yes there is a government interest in denying polygamy. Children, specifically male children, of polygamist societies run into trouble. There are only a select few men that end up with the women in these societies, leaving many young men roving for trouble.

              To make polygamy work, there would have to be a legal requirement that all men marry.

          • GG

            Polygamy is closer to the moral law than homosexual sin. It is a step up in fact.

            • DE-173

              Agreed.

        • ForChristAlone

          “How come you’re right and all of those judges are wrong? What are they missing?
          brains…a classical education…moral foundation…this could go on and on but you’ll quickly recognize the pattern.

          • Chris

            So all of those federal judges who didn’t rule the way you wanted to did so because they’re dumb, uneducated and immoral.

            Thanks for that….

            • ForChristAlone

              You said it, albeit with less elegance.

            • DE-173

              So judges are infallible. Interesting.

        • redfish

          –Nobody ever said that the 14th “requires” same-sex marriage.

          You’re saying it requires same-sex marriage if marriage is in the legal code at all, which it was at the time the 14th passed, and the time the Constitution passed. If you weren’t playing games, you’d understand what I meant and not blow this up into a point of dispute. It shouldn’t be a point of dispute.

          Women’s suffrage wasn’t covered by the 14th either, so the 19th was required. Why was that?

          –But that doesn’t mean the floodgates to polygamy are all of the sudden blown open after a 100+ year prohibition just because Adam and Steve can marry in 19 states.

          Why is it different than same-sex marriage? Why is same-sex marriage different than inter-familial marriage. All I’m saying is judges have to answer this in answering the question of what the 14th amendment covers. After all, it could turn out the logic against polygamy would work against same-sex marriage, too. And if they don’t, they’re doing poor legal analysis. That isn’t a logical disconnect.. that’s asking judges to talk about the basis for marriage laws, and whether ruling one way and not the other is arbitrary.

          • Philmonomer

            Here’s something I haven’t understood:

            What are the reasons courts don’t allow polygamy now? Why does allowing same sex marriage change those reasons?

            What are the reasons courts don’t allow inter-familial marriages now? Why does allowing same sex marriage change those reasons?

            • redfish

              That’s something that definitely has to be answered in the courts to make a decision on same-sex marriage. Otherwise, like I said, I feel the judges aren’t doing their jobs.

              I think if the argument is that procreation isn’t required for marriage, then you have to concede that sex isn’t required for marriage, and allow inter-familial marriages too, and strike down laws that prohibit it. Not doing that is hypocritical, arbitrary, and sets up its own “equal protection” situation.

              Polygamy is a more complicated issue, but you have to dissect what “equal protection” applies to. Does it apply to individuals, or types of relationships? My feeling is that polygamy was not seen as a guarantee under equal protection because marriage that restricted polygamy was restricting the type of relationships marriage applied to, and not discriminating against individuals. Similar to restricting bigamy. Same-sex marriage proponents are relying solely on the precedent of Loving v Virginia, and suggesting same-sex marriage is more analogous to interracial marriage than polygamy, which is really complicated for many reasons, including the fact that straight people are also excluded from same-sex marriage. This is why judges over and over have invoked ‘animus’, because without animus I feel they wouldn’t even know how to begin an opinion.

              But its really just hiding the fact that they don’t want to address the broader legal issues, which are necessary to address to do their jobs.

            • ForChristAlone

              not enough voters to swing it…

    • GG

      Did you have a point?

    • Asmondius

      Join the priesthood.

      • DE-173

        Remember H111?

    • James

      The likelihood that a social conservative will have a rational legal discussion about gay marriage cases is about the same as the likelihood of a social liberal having a rational legal discussion about Hobby Lobby.

    • Cap America

      Lotsa chatter.

  • ForChristAlone

    Someone unlocked the door to the asylum and now we have a mess on our hands. Quick get the key!

  • DE-173

    “My students are pretty quick to agree that marriage must be a contract of some kind. ”

    I missed this on the first go-through. It’s not a contract with terms of equitable reciprocation. That’s part of the statist indoctrination.

    It is a convenant between two dissimilarly situated individuals to become one greater than the sum of the two.

    You have no idea what this means until you are married and experience it over years. My latest lesson was misplacing something for the 33rd time this week and having my wife hunt it down for me, so WE could have the item and piece of mind.

    • R. K. Ich

      Sir, being relatively mobile in my line of work, I would to God I could move my family where you and your family live and worship with you. I’m consistently impressed with your thought processes, and you make the Catholic religion desirable as far as one can from behind a keyboard.

      Oh yes, forgot to mention, my family and I are formally entering RCIA this year under the closest Anglican Use parish. Should be, God willing, in full communion in the not too distant future.

      • ForChristAlone

        Welcome aboard. It’s great to have you along for the ride.

      • DE-173

        You are entirely too kind. Nothing is mine.

        Welcome aboard. Put down your bags and grab an oar, we be in fer some rough sailin’, matey (ARRGHH).

        I recently attended an AO Mass. Apparent from the the old English and being greeted by the Priest and his daughter, it was all very familiar.

        Do you have a Facebook account?

        • R. K. Ich

          No FB account, I’m afraid. if there’s an email account you don’t mind getting spammed, I can send you mine and we can link up. Let me know what works best for you, brother.

          • DE-173

            Let me figure it out. I could set up a temporary one, but would need some way to authenticate the sender.

            • R. K. Ich

              try this one: discardedimagineer@gmail.com
              Here’s my old blog: discardedimagesociety.wordpress.com

              • DE-173

                Done. Redact your msg save the grief.

                • R. K. Ich

                  Well, I sent you some “cloak and dagger” message. I hope it was you!

      • ForChristAlone

        If you’re THAT mobile, you’ll find the ecclesial climate to your liking in the Arlington VA diocese. You’ll find many, many orthodox Catholic families. You’ll find the Novus Ordo Mass reverently prayed, many choices for Latin Masses, and there’s even an Anglican Ordinariate parish closer to DC.

        • DE-173

          “closer to DC.”

          As an aside, I attended Mass @ the National Basilica two weeks ago.

          What a grand edifice.

          • Objectivetruth

            In the lower crypt church, the “Holy Family at Rest” statue and the “Mary, Queen of Missions” side altar are two favorites.

          • ForChristAlone

            in the lower church there’s a tiara worn by Paul VI given as a gift to the US church….also confessions almost all day long every day

      • Fred

        God bless you and your family RK. I’ve yet to run across a whole family who entered RCIA together, but I can’t think of too many things more wonderful. After keeping Christ (the church mostly) at arm’s length most of my life I finally opened my eyes and heart to the Lord and completed RCIA after many decades. Being baptized, receiving first communion and saying our vows in front of God (original civil ceremony) were some of my happiest experiences. Welcome aboard indeed, we need many oarsmen, and we need them all over.

        • ForChristAlone

          Onward, Christian soldiers.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      Marriage is neither a contract nor a covenant, but a conveyance, the transfer of a right. As St Paul says, “the wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” (1 Cor 7:4).

      This is obvious enough, from the fact that there can be a contract to marry, namely a betrothal. Who ever heard of a contract (or covenant) to contract? Of course, I can promise to make a loan, but without delivery, no loan comes into existence.

      Of course, marriage is consensual, but so is a grant. It does not mean that it is helpful to classify a donation as a contract.

      • ForChristAlone

        Marriage, which is but a reflection of God’s relationship to his creation, is a covenant. The whole of the Old and New Testaments can be summed up as covenant. Society get this “marriage” thing wrong because few understand the nature of covenant – mostly because it presumes a necessary relationship to God.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          That is quite wrong.

          A covenant can only impose obligations on the parties to it, whereas property rights affect the whole world.

          Consider this, in marriage, the priest asks, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?” That would be meaningless in a covenant between bride and groom, but it is precisely what one has in a transfer of a property right, where the superior is a necessary party; just as, when A transfers a feu to B, it is A’s superior who gives infeftment to the grantee; not for nothing is this called a “public infeftment”

          • slainte

            If the third “party” to a covenant is God, what obligations are imposed on Him and who enforces them?
            .
            What are the qualities of the “rights” that are being conveyed or assigned by the one who gives the woman to be wed to the recipient of the conveyance?
            .
            We may be getting very close to women being viewed as chattel in your analysis. : )

      • DE-173

        Marriage is neither a contract nor a covenant, but a conveyance.
        My Catholic preparation referred to my marriage as a covenant, between me, my wife and God. I suspect that your perspective is colored more by the dark art you practice and your immersion in archaic French legalisms than Saint Paul.

  • Fred

    Rachel, I see you’ve managed to wake up the community. I didn’t use to think this way, but it’s becoming more clear that there is a full frontal attack on Christ in this country and it’s no more just a proxy war like has been going on for decades, nibbling at the edges piece by piece. It’s laughable to think that progressives want us to believe that this is an end game as if we’re ignorant of history even if we’ve been largely complicit with it. For years the pedophilia and homosexuality movement were linked arm in arm until the later crowd woke up and realized they had a better chance moving forward gaining acceptance if they ditched their former partners. Modern psychiatry can rationalize any behavior because they are humanists at heart and think everything can be rationalized, or masked with drugs. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong after all when you have no moral standard except what you make up as you go along. Even if it was tolerated, who is foolish to believe that this is the end state for people who believe they have no soul. If you don’t wish to recognize by not making a wedding cake or dress your private business will be shut down, imagine that. Several state houses have started drafting laws to force churches to host weddings though none have advanced to vote – anyone care to guess when that domino will fall? People want to get married to their dogs, farm animals, computers, communities, children – what’s the harm if they love them, right? I know the analogy gets overused, but Hans’s The Emperor’s New Clothes always comes to mind – can only an innocence child point out the obvious in sinful behavior? A sin, is a sin, is a sin (all sins) – it’s as plane as the nose on your face. We are not called to celebrate the sin or excoriat the sinner, but to help others and ourselves recognize our ability to sin and seek forgiveness while repenting and trying to sin no more. My head is about to explode so I’m going to go calm myself and find a way to pray that our grand poobah sitting on his golf cart throne in Martha’s Vineyard can find a way to open his heart to Christ while he still can, and realize how far he has fallen from grace.

  • ColdStanding

    Dear screamers, scoffers, doubters, protesters, philanderers, etc.:

    St Thomas Aquinas said, “Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears as so much straw.”* Such are the pronouncements of the courts. Just so much straw to be gathered up and burnt. Their nominal importance not producing enough heat to boil a pot of water.

    The nonsensical manias of these days are but idle pass-times. Useless remedies against a gnawing itch. We sit in the market calling to one another. Trading trinkets as if they were pearls. These things are dust. These things (money, sex, food, power, prestige, politics, sports, etc.) are not what you want.

    What you or anybody else wants is Jesus Christ. We are made for Him. He is what you want. He is what will fill whatever particular hole you are attempting to stuff. Stop amusing yourself with double-entendres. He will fill you with Joy.

    However, He paid the price for you and now you must reciprocate. The things of this world aren’t even two mites, but if you offer them to God, He will accept it as reciprocation.

    * and what he wrote is totally awesome! The courts pronouncements, er, not so much.

  • RTW

    I think the writer has the history backwards and is ignoring the massive previous effort to preempt marriage equality with ballot initiatives in thirty-plus states. The tide turned and the trend is set. There is no plausible political, legislative, or judicial path to reversing marriage equality in the states where it exists. Nobody has laid out a plausible scenario that leads to reversal, if there is please explain it.
    Generationally, the support for equality skews strongly as age drops. It is unlikely that young adults will change their opinions enough to reverse and support restrictions that would take away equaliity, especially has there is no measurable harm to individual citizens caused by same sex couples being married that outweighs equal treatment under the law.
    The GOP has basically dropped the issue, as it no longer works and has low appeal beyond a conservative base they already. They know it’s over, and can use the losses in courts to get out the vote again and again. So there goes the legislative path.
    There have virtually no losses by the pro-equality side in the federal district which points to a SCOTUS confirming the lower courts, this whole thing could be over by 2017.

    • ForChristAlone

      there is no such thing as marriage equality…this is an appeal to emotion and made up out of whole cloth…nice try but no cigar…we’re not buying it here…go peddle it elsewhere.

    • GG

      Vice is not about equality.

    • maineman

      You are right. The nihilists have won this round and there is nothing left but to stay clear of the debris and watch the Tower of Babel that is contemporary liberalism continue to collapse. The rebuilding is already underway for those with eyes to see.

    • James

      The arguments have been heard in federal courts and decided. All that is left is for SCOTUS to confirm. The debate really is over.

      The direct impact of gay marriage will be extremely small. There really aren’t that many same-sex couples looking to marry and those who do will be the most stable couples. The overwhelming majority of marriage licenses will continue to be given to opposite sex couples. Still, fewer of them will be handed out because heterosexuals are losing interest in marriage. But this would happen whether or not the law recognized same-sex marriage.

      What is a concern is the increasingly oppressive anti-discrimination laws. By opposing basic legal accommodations for a small number of people, conservatives have gotten the reputation of being irrational bigots. Therefore, an increasing number of people see the conservative position as invalid and immoral, much like that of the segregationist. This is not as much due to pressure from the “gay lobby” as much as it is the general public’s (especially the younger generation) complete antipathy toward conservatives. The young despise the religious right.

      I don’t think these gains will be reversed, but eventually, they will be irrelevant. Homosexual sex has never been a particularly popular sin and all the celebration in the world by the popular media won’t make it appeal to the majority of people. Anti-discrimination laws will be circumvented by arrangements that are far more personal and far less regulated. (Think airbnb or uber gone widescale.)

  • Dave Melechinsky

    Actually, we Catholics should learn from our mistakes, as highlighted by the (revealing) readiness of the enemies of God to shut down debate on issues over which they once demanded the “right” to debate. What was that mistake? Allowing issues settled by Divine definition to be treated as subject to debate.

    We do not (yet) debate whether “2+2” should be allowed to have values other than “4”. How does it come to pass that “marriage”, a sacrament instituted by Christ to provide for the procreation and education of children, and for the mutual support and union of one man with one woman until death, has been permitted to have a gradually weakened meaning, until the inevitable crisis that we see now?

    Catholics warned a long time ago that legalizing divorce, and later contraception, would lead to these unspeakable perversions we see today. But society had by then embraced the myth of separation of church and state, and no longer felt bound by Church teaching as to the definitions of words. And of course there was “no way” it would ever lead to “marriage” between sodomites!

    Since Vatican II, too many of us Catholics no longer know what our Church teaches! The general lack of public outcry over the bizarre statements of personal opinion by Pope Francis (whose unorthodox opinions do not fall under the charism of papal infallibility) is just the latest bit of evidence that this is true.

    We Catholics must return to what has been called by the straying hierarchy the “outdated ecclesiology” of the “pre-conciliar Church”. We have dutifully placed the bushel-basket of ecumenism over the light of Catholic Truth, to avoid offending the enemies of the Church, for far too long. And it’s not just the Church that is harmed by it. In the resulting darkness, the world is careening blissfully to its own destruction.

    It is time to remove that basket and let Catholic Truth be proclaimed in its entirety to a world desperately in need of it. Don’t wait for your bishop to tell you. Get out those old catechisms and learn what Christ’s Church has always taught, and what no man, not even the Holy Father, has the authority to change.

    • ForChristAlone

      Be heartened by the fact that Catholic laity are in the ascendency. Most of the catechesis these days is being done by lay men and women – in print, in person, and most importantly in the new media. Look around us; the march has begun. Other than a few brave ones, the bishops are forming the rear guard.

  • thebigdog

    In countries where “gay marriage” has been legal for many years, approximately 5% of homosexuals have actually gotten married. Five years from now, after “gay marriage” has been legal in most (if not all) of the U.S. — fewer than 10% of homosexuals will have gotten married. This begs the question… why all of the leftist hysteria over an issue that only effects 5% of a subculture that comprises only 2% of the general population?

    Homosexual behavior is consistent with emotionally damaged people who are attention starved and addicted to a victim mentality.

  • CharlesOConnell
  • hombre111

    i don’t think progressives are saying the argument is over as much as they are saying that the younger generation has shifted radically from the older generation. As the older generation disappears, support for gay marriage will be more and more a majority opinion. Part of the reason younger people support gay marriage is that they have gay friends. The conservative argument is an abstract deductive process looking for support in the lives of real people. So far, the evidence is mixed. After generations of observation, we know that heterosexual marriages are fifty percent successful and struggle to raise healthy children. Not exactly a golden recommendation. In the meanwhile, the statistics on homosexual marriage have barely begun to be recorded. This means a generation of so must pass before we have a clear picture.

    I have queasy feelings about this kind of social experiment. But we do have a way of rushing headlong into things and barely wondering about them later. For instance, we now have more than three hundred million guns in America, in the hands of the experienced and inexperienced, the sane and the insane. This experiment leads to 30,000 plus deaths by gun every year, along with chaos in the big cities. But in the eyes of many, including certain members of the Supreme Court, this is an acceptable social cost. What will be the acceptable social cost of gay marriage>

    • ForChristAlone

      Get with the mind of the Church.

  • Kim58

    Are there differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals we should notice? What I have found interesting in talking with heterosexual married women who are against homosexual behavior is that they tend to think homosexual sex is somehow “gross”. By that they mean the thought of one man sticking his >>>> into another man’s>>> is “gross”, or one man sucking on another man’s >>> is “gross”. Well, does that mean no married heterosexual man has never stuck his >>> into his wife’s >>> or no heterosexual wife has never sucked on her husband’s >>>? Interestingly heterosexual couples seem more “grossed” out by what the men do to each other, but they don’t seem as bothered by what 2 women might do to each other. Could this be because many heterosexual married couples do to each other basically the same thing that 2 lesbian women do to each other? So if heterosexual couples can often mimic in their own sexual relationships the same sterile, life-avoiding sexual activity that homosexual couples engage in, what then are the difference we are supposed to notice between heterosexuals and homosexuals? One suggestion I may make is that the difference between heterosexual and homosexual sexual behavior is ONLY apparent when heterosexuals DON’T engage in behavior that STERLIZES their sexual activity because heterosexual couplings are the ONLY couplings that have any possibility of creating NEW LIFE. So, I suggest, perhaps those trying to defend “marriage” might ponder what CONTRACEPTION has done to eradicate the unique nature of MARRIAGE. Could the fact that 98% of our young people who can’t explain what marriage is be explained by the fact that their heterosexual parents engage in sterile sex and thus have a hard time differentiating their sexual behavior from that of homosexual couples? But focusing on the life-giving nature of the sexual act raises another issue…what then is wrong with polygamy which can create many new lives? Why limit the life giving sexual relationship to 2? Perhaps previous generations had a good reason for limiting the life-giving sexual relationship to just 2? What could that reason have been…hmmm….? Yes, indeed, we have much to think about in this marriage debate….to be continued!

    • GG

      People have been contracepting for decades. The new acceptance of perverted behavior is much deeper than the link to contraception. It is a searing of consciences. It is moral relativism. It is deformed consciences from unrepentant mortal sin.

    • ForChristAlone

      Was there a point that you wanted to make….succinctly?

  • TERRY

    Kids need a mommy and they need a daddy – together.

    To some that is a ‘hurtful’ statement.

    Tough

  • James

    Here are a few questions in response to these questions:

    1. What should the law say marriage is?

    The debate over gay marriage (at least in the United States) is about a legal institution. Nobody is going to require any religious institutions to marry anyone they don’t want to marry (or prevent them from marrying anyone they do want to marry, even if the marriage has no legal effect). The debate is not one of faith, but of matters of law and public policy. With this in mind, the authors questions become the following:

    Should the law require spouses to live together?
    Should the law require spouses to have children, if possible?
    Should the law require sexual exclusivity if the spouses desire otherwise?

    While many desire all three things and have very strong religious and philosophical beliefs that these should be part of a marriage, making them legal requirements feels, quite frankly, a bit intrusive.

    The reason that traditional marriage advocates are losing is that the are that when you take the personal matters out of marriage—the matters that most people feel are none of the government’s business—marriage is little more than a contract and there is no reason not to allow same-sex couples to have access to these rights. Not even consummation is required to have a valid marriage in most states.

    2. Are the differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals greater than the differences among heterosexual couples?

    The article claims that gay relationships are less likely to be sexually monogamous while lesbian relationships are more likely to be unstable than heterosexual ones. Assuming ad arguendo that this is true, it is irrelevant. We all know train-wrecks of heterosexual relationships, yet nobody is seriously considering denying heterosexuals the right to form an ill-conceived union in Vegas with the Elvis impersonator of their choice. And speaking of ill-conceived, “shotgun weddings” aren’t a thing among gay couples for reasons that should be obvious.

    The article raises a bar for same sex couples that many heterosexuals don’t clear. Nor is there any movement to raise the bar for legal recognition of heterosexual relationships.

    Again, if a church wants to add additional requirements, they are free to do so, but that is not the issue.

    3. Does a child need one parent of each sex to have these different contributions?

    Perhaps this is the most disappointing part of the article because it leans so heavily on gender stereotypes. Not all mothers are attuned to the needs of young children and not all fathers excel at discipline. Sometimes the father is the sensitive one and the mother the disciplinarian. If a heterosexual couple can “reverse roles”, then why can’t a same sex couple fulfill them?

    That being said, perhaps there is an advantage to having parents of the opposite sex, no matter what role they fill. The jury is still out on this. Adoption is always a sub-optimal situation (I’m talking to you, pro-life movement) and artificial reproductive technology is exploitation. Nevertheless, in the United States, legal marriage has nothing to do with procreation. This is an important issue, but a tangential one.

    4. Where should the expansion of marriage stop and why?

    Remember, we are talking about a legal contract, not a sacrament. What should and should the law not consider to be a valid marriage and why? What purpose does the law have in marriage (presumably social stability and a mutual granting of of rights) and what relationships do not fill this purpose. This is a discussion that both sides are afraid to have, but for different reasons.

    In conclusion, it’s not that same-sex marriage supporters are relying on emotional appeals, it’s that the issue has been discussed and same-sex marriage opponents lost. To win, same sex marriage opponents must show that expanding legal marriage to same-sex couples is contrary to the purposes of legal marriage above and beyond marriages contrary to the purpose of legal marriage that are currently allowed under the law. This they have not done. Instead, they have engaged in their own forms of muddying the water, equivocation, and emotional appeals, and, not surprisingly, have lost.

    • TomD

      “Remember, we are talking about a legal contract, not a sacrament.”

      In a nutshell, this belief, and the details around this “contract,” form a primary reason why marriage is in the mess that it is in today and why, with so many people now accepting this notion, that the radical redefinition of marriage, unthinkable merely a generation ago, is now possible.

      The contractural nature of marriage has almost nothing to do with its safeguarding and maintenance and almost everything to do with the duties and responsibilities of the “contracting parties” once this non-binding contract is dissolved by either party, for any reason, at any time. Thus, marriage, when treated primarily as a legal contract, is destablilizing and the emergence of this modern notion of marriage has directly contributed to the decline of marriage in the West.

      Marriage is sacramental and covenential, not utilitarian, “legal,” and, most certainly not “romantic.” The modern, post-Reformation/French Revolutionary idea, that gradually has gained acceptance in the West – that marriage is the ultimately incompatible combination of legal contract and personal, romantic “fantasy,” and not sacramental and covenential – is a primary reason why marriage is in decline in the United States, and in the West generally, in practice, in influence, and in honor and respect.

      The recent push to radically redefine marriage is a direct reflection of the decline of marriage, due to this mistaken notion of marriage as a legal “contract.”

      • James

        So, what should the law say that marriage is? If not a contract, then what is it?

        Should the law of a secular, pluralistic nation be in the sacrament business? If not, then what, if anything, should the law recognize as “marriage”?

        • TomD

          James, your question, a good one by the way, would require an answer with considerable detail that I am not qualified to provide.

          This much I can say: We are now, in a sense, “trapped” by the modern notion that marriage is primarily a legal contract and not sacramental. We will continue to look for answers in law to fix something that is not, ultimately, legal in nature. Until we recover the sacramental nature of marriage, marriage will continue to decline and to be open to all manner of radical redefinition.

          • James

            The United States is a product of both the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that pre-Reformation/pre-Enlightenment views are unpopular and unconvincing among the public.

            • TomD

              James, which is precisely why marriage is in such a state of decline in the West, in one sense, over the last 60 years or so, in another sense, with its origins in the Enlightenment and the Reformation.

              When the true nature of marriage is both unpopular and unconvincing among the public, and false notions have become ascendent, we shouldn’t be surprised that marriage is in decline – in practice, in influence, and in honor and respect. This is most recently evidenced by the unprecedented effort to radically redefine marriage, a direct reflection of that decline. And as just one sign of that decline, according to a 2012 Pew Center study, 40% of young Americans now believe that marriage is “obsolete.”

        • ForChristAlone

          You really don’t see that the definition of marriage as you have described it results in no definition at all. Marriage does not exist in the terms you lay out. You have neutered the meaning of marriage so to speak. It’s like all relativistic thought – when marriage can mean anything, it winds up meaning nothing.

          • James

            Is the definition of marriage determined by the secular authorities or the Church?

            If the answer is the secular authorities, then they are free to change it based on the will of the people. If your answer is the Church, then what do you say to those who have a different creed than you do in a pluralistic secular society.

            “I” have not neutered anything. This is how the law defines marriage. If you don’t like it, convince your fellow citizens and change the law.

            • ForChristAlone

              “Now what I ask you is whether the definition of marriage determined by the secular authorities or the Church?” You just don’t get it. Neither secular authorities nor the Church determine what marriage is. Marriage is what the natural law dictates.

              I detect you might be a sincere person. I would recommend that you do some reading – preferably those by Peter Kreeft and J. Budziszewski – on the natural law.

            • GG

              Reality determines the definition. The State cannot mandate square circles exist simply by concocting some kooky definition.

      • ForChristAlone

        And the reason why they persist in their attacks of the Catholic Church is that we are the only institution left that defines marriage as a covenant.

    • ForChristAlone

      You give us a lot of words but no truth. Words are a poor substitute for truth. This is not about civil law. Legislators can make up a law that judges will defend that says 2+2=5. This is about the natural law, not ecclesiastical law and not civil law. When civil law violates the natural law, it is bad law. Thanks for trying tough but you should have asked us first.

      • James

        Then convince your fellow citizens to change the law to enact your definition of marriage in the civil law.

        Be sure to specify exactly how involved the government should be in determining what is and is not marriage and what marriages are and are not valid.

        • ForChristAlone

          My fellow citizens will eventually come to the point where they see that their invention is empty. When this inevitably happens, they will abandon all pretences and resort to all sorts of arrangements that fit their prurient desires. This is all about politics (and hence the attempt to contrive laws to support their position) in order to legitimize unnatural acts and force those of us still possessing some semblance of sanity to go along with this groupthink. But guess what: nature is what nature is.

    • GG

      Following your goofy logic a father can “marry” his son or a woman can “marry” a tree.

      The arguments used by homosexualists are based solely on emotionalism and utilitarianism. The contract business is simply a type of deflection. Marriage, recognized by the State, is not a mere contract. If that were true there would be no need for homosexuals to ape true marriage. They would simply draw up papers to get the benefits they want.

      No, the State has a duty to protect marriage which existed before the State did. What you are arguing is that the State can claim square circles exist simply because a contract is used.

      • James

        Your argument seems to hang on the state using the word “marriage” to define the legal partnership. If they were called “domestic partnerships”, would your feelings be any different?

        As for my own view, Shakespeare was right: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. Civil marriage, domestic partnership, civil union, whatever: It’s the same legal institution conferring the same rights.

        • GG

          Well, words are used to describe reality. When we say water we do not mean lint. When we say fire we do not mean mouse.

          Marriage is not a legal partnership. It is not a mere friendship. Marriage predates religion and the State. It is the union of male and female that exists to produce and protect children.

          A “domestic partnership” is not marriage. It may ape marriage, but it is not. Do I support such things? No. It is a legal device meant to mimic true marriage. If pals want some legal device then they can draw up papers.

          Marriage is not any of those things you listed. The law ought to reflect reality, not fabricate some fiction to satisfy some agitating group.

          • James

            “If pals want some legal device then they can draw up papers.”

            Why not have a simple single instrument for them that provides a pre-defined and pre-packaged set of rights? Or are you a fan of red tape and full employment for lawyers?

            • GG

              I am a fan of reality and logic. The “red tape” is a red herring. There is no pressing need to develop a marriage look-alike device.

              • James

                Just because you have no need for such a partnership doesn’t mean that others don’t desire one.

                Why should a couple who desires legal recognition of their domestic partnership have to sign a stack full of papers (with the required legal fees) when one document would give them what they wanted? This serves no rational government purpose.

                • GG

                  The government exists to protect the common good, not to further the irrational desires of some counterfeit group.

                  We do not need pretend marriages. Two people, or more, can go to a lawyer and get the papers they need. That is no hardship. It is only viewed as such by the post modern mind that thinks every desire must be fulfilled.

                  • James

                    “Two people, or more, can go to a lawyer and get the papers they need. That is no hardship. ”

                    You don’t consider paying legal fees and taking the time to draw up all those documents that others don’t have to pay for the same legal protections to be a hardship?

                    “The government exists to protect the common good, not to further the irrational desires of some counterfeit group.”

                    So who determines what the common good is and how best to achieve it?

          • ForChristAlone

            He just doesn’t get it. Perhaps he never will. He might be wise, though, to study up more on covenantal marriage. Better yet, he might be wiser still to investigate the teachings of the Catholic Church

            • GG

              It is called relativism. He wants marriage to be like plastic.

    • bonaventure

      (1) “Nobody is going to require…” Like the contraception mandate?

      (2) “The debate is not one of faith…” Tell that to the Christians who are being dragged before courts because they refuse to associate with homosexual behavior.

      (3) “Marriage is little more than a contract…” Tell that to the polygamists whose “contract” is not recognized by the state.

      (4) “We all know train-wrecks of heterosexual relationships…” So your measure of comparison is failure? I agree that homosexuality is a failure.

      (5) About children: one more time, you are comparing homosexuality to something inferior to a natural (mother and father) family. Again, I agree.

      (6) Demonstrating that opposite sex marriage is alone marriage and cannot be expanded (and alone benefits the state and society) IS ALREADY WRITTEN IN THE VERY LAWS WHICH LIBERALS ARE TRYING TO STRIKE DOWN. The wheel does not need to be reinvented. Liberals are trying to strike down these laws because, precisely, they would have to otherwise admit that their “relationships” are inferior (as they are) and without interest for the state (as is indeed a fact).

      Actually, homosexuals are playing the emotional “human rights” song, while never ever demonctrating what interest the state has to recognize their “contracts.”

      You fail. And you can only win through government over-reach and judicial fiat. Just as in any dictatorial regime.

      • James

        In the not too distant past, intraracial marriage was alone marriage IN THE VERY LAWS THAT LIBERALS STRUCK DOWN.

        Was the court right to strike down laws prohibiting interracial marriage despite the will of the people in enacting these laws?

        Even with public policy today strongly in favor of allowing interracial marriage, no government official can force a Church or religious institution to perform one if they don’t want to. No government recognition of second marriages after divorce can force the Catholic Church to marry divorce persons. That’s how religious freedom works.

        Neither the issue of the contraception mandate nor even that of
        anti-discrimination laws (which I agree are problematic) is the same
        issue as gay marriage. Furthermore, conservative opposition to allowing
        same-sex couples recognition under the law of a secular government leads
        people to see the conservative position as inherently irrational and
        conservative opposition as not worthy of consideration under the law. When you take positions that are at best ill-informed and at worse ill-intended, people stop taking you seriously.

  • Cap America

    Excellent article, Rachel. It’s very difficult to get advocates of this nonsense to move past a few quick stabs at an argument. They themselves know–or many do—that it’s nonsense on a bandwagon.

    The essential thing for me SHOULD simply be that the Bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin. My searching, questioning, itchy rational mind doesn’t rest at that point (unfortunately).

    I think, in the end, that the reason homosexual “marriage” doesn’t work well is because a fundamental aspect of life as a human being is maleness and femaleness. Homosexuals who raise children really give their children enormous blindspots (the same kind that can appear in the children of divorce) about very vital aspects of being human.

    And, like it or not, the unnaturalness of homosexual sex is something I see and agree exists.

    I feel MUCH of the public “support” for the issue comes from people who aren’t spending much time thinking about it, and just want the silly activists to STFU.

  • Guest_august

    I am encouraged by many of the comments here. This is NOT a culture war. It is the beginning of the final battle against the forces of evil whose present strategy is to take as many souls as possible to a very unpleasant place by means of unbridled Sodomy.
    popeleo13.com/pope/2014/05/30/category-archive-message-board-48/

  • bonaventure

    Mark McKinnon… once a democrat, always a democrat.

  • JRDF

    Although most progressives claim, adamantly, that they are evolutionists and that only us flat-earthers are creationists; they are strict creationists on the homosexual issue. As only a strict creationist would not understand that the harshest critic of homosexual relationships is not religion but evolution. It is evolution that has “deemed” the homosexual phenotype to be not equal to the heterosexual phenotype. Or using evolutionary terms — the homosexual trait is an unfit phenotype / genotype. (In layman’s terms homosexual relations / behaviors are not equal to heterosexual relations / behaviors, thus the equality argument (i.e. 14th amendment argument) is fallacious.)

    It is the responsibility of society to ensure it’s own preservation into the future, that is why society has a duty to place the heterosexual union above all other unions. The math of (evolutionary / biological) life (for humans, higher animals & higher plants) is 1 + 1 = 3 (or more) [male + female = male, female, offspring).

    Or to expand this more: What is the basic structural, functional, biological, genetic, evolutionary, civil, etc. unit of human society & human civilization? The heterosexual couple.

    ——————–

    The homosexual activists are definitely not proponents of limited government, as they insist that government impose THEIR believes, morals on others. (see http://blog.acton.org/archives/71751-family-farmers-fined-following-conscience.html) But for us that know that limited government provides the most freedom possible, we must ask 2 basic questions:
    1. What interest does society (i.e. government) have in the homosexual act? NONE!

    2. What interest does society (i.e. government) have in the heterosexual act? Ultimately everything. Most fundamentally, the preservation / propagation of society.

    (A simple way to understand this is in an old joke —- If you and _____X_____ were the last two humans on earth and it was up to you to re-start the human race; who would you want ______X______ to be???)

    • mitch64

      Its a heterosexual couple (majority, there are some gay men who get married and have kids) who produce a homosexual. So biology is ensuring that for some reason, there are more bouncing baby gays each year! Maybe its a natural way to keep the population from exploding (totally natural folks no birth control here..) If your argument was the case then gays would have stopped being born long ago and certain people would have to find other ways to vent their neurotic fears.

      • JRDF

        Your analysis is shear emotional absurdity and devoid of fact or any understanding of biological sciences.
        Natural evolution by natural selection tells us that the homosexual genotype / phenotype in humans or animals would be selected toward extinction. But genetic mutations, as well as non-expressed recessive alleles, keep many traits from going entirely extinct. Also due to civilization / modern medicine, etc., humans do not go through strict natural selection as with animals / plants. But none-the-less, evolution through natural selection dictates that the homosexual genotype / phenotype is indeed an evolutionarily unfit or abnormal condition.

        Then we have genetics and epidemiology, which tells us, as with other genetic-linked abnormalities, that the TRUE homosexual genotype / phenotype is an extremely low occurrence, as we see with the genetic-linked abnormality Tay–Sachs Disease, which has an occurrence in the US at a rate of 1 in 320,000 individuals or 0.0003%. So genetics & epidemiology tell us that the vast majority of homosexuals are NOT TRUE GENETIC homosexuals but behavioral homosexuals — due to choice or sociology. Considering that Orgasm (anyway possible) is our new god, the fallacious rate of 10% or even 3% is quite understandable.

        In the end, as has been noted elsewhere, the emotion-driven, neurotic, pro-homosexual activists are trying to replace one of our premier constitutional rights (Freedom of Religion), with a new right (Freedom of Sexual Behavior).

        Your comment: “Maybe its a natural way to keep the population from exploding” is shear emotionalism and scientifically absurd and doesn’t even come up to the defunct Lamarkian standard. Nature / Evolution doesn’t give a damn about population explosions, extinction, etc., it just goes by the law of natural selection, with no concern about which phenotypes / genotypes / species / Genera / Family / Order / Class survive and which go extinct.

        • mitch64

          I must say I am interested that you found a gay “genotype,” and that you are sharing it here with the Crisis readers! Also, your post on this website is rich with irony… “emotionally absurd” and “neurotic.”

          • JRDF

            “I must say I am interested that you found a gay “genotype,”

            So which is it?
            Is homosexuality a genetically imposed condition? (i.e. a genetic / evolutionary anomaly)

            Or is homosexuality a behavioral CHOICE (i.e. not genetically linked)? (i.e. a choice / addiction to engage in hedonism?)

  • The morality of Gay marriage is comparable to the morality of Straight marriage: It is morally and ethically preferable to encourage people toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and possibly promiscuity. So YES: Supporting marriage equality is the true conservative position.

    Studies have repeatedly shown that the benefits are substantial:
    1: Married couples typically contribute more and take less from society.
    2: Married couples support and care for each other financially, physically and emotionally and often contribute more to the economy and savings.
    3: Individuals who are married are less likely to receive government entitlements.
    4: Individuals who are married statistically consume less health care services, and often give more to churches and charities.
    5: Married couples are better able to provide care and security for children.

    So what sense does it make to exclude law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples from this place at the table? Why is it, for example, that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.

    Couples do not need to marry to have children, nor is the ability or even desire to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. There are also countless Gay individuals and couples who are raising adopting children into healthy, well-adjusted adulthood.

    As Judge Vaughn Walker said in the decision on California’s Prop. 8 Case: “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.” It was a view shared by the courts in the Golinski case against DOMA, where a Bush appointee in the Northern District of California concurred: “The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages.”

  • since I read this, we’ve fallen down the slippery slope another rung into polygamy:
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/28/343953743/federal-judge-strikes-down-part-of-utahs-polygamy-ban

    Goodbye same sex marriage, hello Polygamy debate, and since slippery slopes are always unidirectional, we’ll lose this battle too.

  • Ohso

    I remember waiting in line outside former judge ‘von-wanker’s Prop-8 courtroom for a good seat during Blankenthorn’s testimony.

    Most around me were GILBERT Activists – including one younger womyn, who was asked by another womyn if she too was ‘Gaily Happy’.

    She replied somewhat ashamedly that No, She Wasn’t; But brightened up and added – “But I am Questioning”, as if it was a self improvement program she was working on.

    Hence the GILBERTS? Try to pitch real big tents – inclusive of all save those afflicted with the Thought Crime of ‘Ism-Obia’ – meaning failure or refusal to pander to their pathology.

    Author Johan Hari provides background on the pogrom, and although himself a Homo-Anal Coprophile – discusses the Gaystapo in his essay:

    The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html

    … This is a taboo topic for a gay left-wing man like me to touch, but there has always been a weird, disproportionate overlap between homosexuality and fascism…

    And this Gaystapo has an icon to revere, an alternative Fuhrer to worship: the lost gay fascist leader Ernst Rohm. Along with Adolf Hitler, Rohm was the founding father of Nazism…

    – first spotted the potential of a soap-box ranter called Adolf Hitler… for many years as “Rohm’s boy… “Hitler was, to a substantial extent, Rohm’s protégé.”

    He flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted his cronies do the same.

    He believed straight people weren’t as adept at bullying and aggression as homosexuals, so homosexuality was given a high premium in the SA.

MENU